insert_reviews

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the insert operation and 'raw' nature, but doesn't explain side effects, permissions, or error conditions. The 'advanced' label hints at low-level behavior but lacks detail.

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?

One sentence and a fragment, zero wasted words. It is efficiently front-loaded with the key action and purpose.

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?

An output schema exists but its content is unknown. The description lacks detail on the review tuple format and behavioral constraints. For an advanced tool, more guidance on input structure and expected behavior would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'each row is AnkiConnect's review tuple' but doesn't explain the tuple structure or integer meanings. This adds some context but is insufficient for correct parameter usage.

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 inserts raw review-log rows, specifies it's advanced, and notes it's mainly for migrating history. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_note (adds notes) and card_reviews (retrieves reviews).

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?

It explicitly says 'advanced' and 'mainly for migrating history', giving clear context that this is for data migration, not typical use. It implies alternatives like add_note or card_reviews exist but doesn't name them directly.

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