update_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a success message with operation details, which is helpful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral traits like whether updates are destructive (e.g., tags REPLACE all existing tags is only in schema), authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits for a mutation tool.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose and 4 operations in the first sentence, followed by the return value. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The structure is logical and efficiently communicates the tool's capabilities.

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 complex mutation tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the operations and return value, but doesn't cover important contextual details like error conditions, side effects, or how this tool relates to sibling tools. The schema handles parameter documentation well, but the description could provide more behavioral context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by summarizing the 4 operations and their purposes, which helps the agent understand the semantic grouping of parameters. However, it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what's in the 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 ('Update') and resource ('a card/note in Anki'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying it supports 4 distinct operations. It goes beyond a simple update to explain the specific operations available, which differentiates it from tools like 'add_card' or 'get_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 provides clear context for when to use each operation (e.g., 'answer' for marking as reviewed, 'update_note' for comprehensive updates), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_card' for creating new cards. It implies usage through operation descriptions but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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