edit_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that FSRS review state (difficulty, stability, due date, reps) is preserved. It also specifies the return format (JSON with card_id, front, back, deck).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint. Every sentence adds value: purpose, parameters, usage advice, return format. No unnecessary words.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and a mentioned output schema, the description covers all necessary info: what it does, how parameters work, behavioral traits, return format. It is complete for a simple update 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds full meaning: 'Update any of front, back, deck (omit or pass null to leave unchanged)'. It explains that card_id is required and optional parameters are nullable with default null.

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 'Edit', the resource 'card', and the key constraint 'without disturbing its schedule'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_card and delete_card.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to fix typos or add context instead of creating a duplicate card', providing clear usage guidance. It implies when to use (fix typos, add context) and when not (schedule changes).

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