add_card

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: new cards are due immediately, which is important scheduling context. It does not say whether the deck must already exist or whether the call fails on an unknown deck, nor what the response contains.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, and the behavioral note placed immediately after it. Every clause carries information with no filler.

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 simple four-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the core action and one side effect. Missing are the deck reference semantics and the create-failure conditions, which an agent needs to call it reliably.

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 75%, so front, back, and tags are already documented in the schema and the description adds nothing there. The one undocumented parameter, deck, is also unexplained in the description, leaving open whether it takes a name or an ID — so the description neither compensates nor detracts much.

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?

"Add a flashcard to a deck" names a concrete verb and resource, and the deck/card split from siblings like create_deck or delete_card is evident from the wording. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the sibling list, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative tool (e.g., review_card or list_cards). The only secondary sentence is about scheduling behavior, not about how to choose this tool.

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