create-cloze-cards-bulk

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait (sends one request regardless of batch size) and a limitation (no media support). This goes beyond the schema, which only describes parameters. However, it does not mention error handling, idempotency, or return behavior, which would make it more complete. Still, it provides meaningful context that an agent would find useful.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with zero fluff. The primary purpose and efficiency benefit are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the limitation with alternative is in the second. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a bulk creation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and a key limitation. It relies on the schema for deck existence and tag constraints, which is appropriate given 100% schema coverage. It lacks explicit mention of return values or failure modes, but those are not critical for a straightforward creation tool. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (deckName, cards, and nested fields). The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Per calibration, baseline is 3 when schema covers all parameters, and no additional value is added here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates multiple cloze notes in a single call, using specific verbs and resources. It explicitly distinguishes itself from create-cloze-card by stating it is a batch alternative, and even names the sibling for media support. This leaves no ambiguity about its function or its differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit guidance: use this instead of calling create-cloze-card repeatedly, and use create-cloze-card when media (images/audio) is needed. It also implies it is the preferred choice for bulk cloze creation without media. This directly addresses when to use the tool versus its alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.