forget_cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool forgets all review progress, which implies resetting intervals, ease, and review history. However, it does not disclose reversibility, permission requirements, or potential side effects (e.g., sync impact). This is adequate but not thorough.

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 with no extraneous words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently, front-loading the action and outcome.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema (which likely documents return values), the description covers the essential transformation. However, it omits details like whether the tool works on all card types, if it can be undone, or if it respects pending reviews. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the 'card_ids' parameter, and the tool description does not explain what card IDs are, how to obtain them, or any constraints (e.g., minimum/maximum count, valid card states). The agent must infer from context that these are Anki card identifiers, which is insufficient for a parameter without schema docs.

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 resets cards to the 'new' state, explicitly using the verb 'reset' and specifying the effect of forgetting review progress. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like 'answer_cards', 'suspend_cards', or 'set_due_date', which modify card state differently.

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 alternatives such as 'relearn_cards' or 'set_ease_factors'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., cards must not be suspended) or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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