submit_reviews

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'submit' implying mutation, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., scheduling updates, error handling) or prerequisites (e.g., card existence). This is insufficient for safe tool invocation.

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 short and front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence. The args are documented in a structured list. No redundant information, but could be slightly more concise (e.g., inline enum values).

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?

The tool has an output schema which may document return values, but the description does not mention what it returns (e.g., success status, count). Additionally, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., Anki must be running, card must exist). Given the complexity, more completeness is warranted.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by listing each field and its allowed values (card_id integer, rating enum), explaining the ratings. This adds value beyond the raw schema, though further details like required ratings context could improve.

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 specifies the verb 'submit' and the resource 'multiple card reviews to Anki' with explicit rating values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'fetch_due_cards_for_review' which is about fetching, not submission.

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 implies usage after fetching due cards, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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