update-cloze-card

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, permission requirements, whether the update is partial or full, or any impact on existing card data. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap – the agent knows it updates but not how it behaves.

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 extremely short, essentially restating the tool name. While it is not verbose, it fails to add any value beyond the name – it does not earn its place by providing useful context. It is under-specified rather than concise, similar to a tautology.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what 'update' means operationally, whether fields are optional or overwrite existing values, or what the expected outcome is. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool based solely on this description.

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 all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter context, but per the rubric, the baseline is 3 when the schema covers everything. The description does not clarify parameter relationships or update semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Update an existing cloze note'. It distinguishes from create-cloze-card by using 'update' and specifies 'cloze' to differentiate from generic update-card. However, it does not mention the fields that can be updated or the fact that it operates on a note rather than a card, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling update-card or create-cloze-card. An agent cannot determine whether to use this for cloze notes and update-card for basic notes without additional context. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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