add_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the return value ('Returns card ID on success'), reveals formatting constraints ('Use HTML only'), explains media handling ('Media files support URLs or local absolute paths'), and mentions case-sensitivity requirements. It doesn't cover error conditions or rate limits.

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 efficiently structured with zero wasted sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides essential formatting and media guidelines. Each sentence adds distinct value: creation action, requirements, return value, formatting rules, and media support.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: purpose, requirements, return value, formatting constraints, and media handling. It covers the essential behavioral aspects though doesn't address potential errors, authentication needs, or the exact structure of the returned card ID.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - mainly emphasizing the 'fields' object must match note type field names and repeating HTML formatting guidance. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Create a new flashcard in Anki') and identifies the resource ('flashcard'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'batch_add_card' (bulk operation) or 'update_card' (modification). It provides a complete functional overview in the opening sentence.

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 clear context about when to use this tool by specifying required parameters and formatting requirements, but doesn't explicitly mention when to use alternatives like 'batch_add_card' for multiple cards or 'update_card' for modifications. The guidance is practical but lacks sibling differentiation.

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