cards_to_notes

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the deduplication behavior, which is a key trait. However, it does not specify what happens with invalid or missing card IDs, or whether the output is a mapping list.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and result. No redundant information; every word adds value.

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?

Given the simple mapping operation and the presence of an output schema (as per context signals), the description covers the essential purpose and deduplication. Minor gaps remain about error handling, but overall it is largely complete for a low-complexity tool.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'card_ids' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description only restates that card IDs are input, adding no extra meaning about format, constraints, or examples. It should compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'map' and the resources 'card IDs' to 'parent note IDs', with the qualifier 'deduplicated'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'cards_info' or 'find_cards' by specifying a unique transformation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'cards_info' or 'find_notes'. The description implies a use case but offers no exclusions or context for selection.

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