anki_add_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Add') but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a mutation (likely yes), error handling (e.g., if the deck doesn't exist), permissions needed, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective 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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. It immediately conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral traits, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with incomplete information for reliable use in a broader 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three required parameters (deckName, front, back). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as formatting examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter guidance.

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 action ('Add') and resource ('flashcard to an Anki deck'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'anki_add_notes' (plural) or 'anki_create_deck', which would require more specificity about scope or use cases.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'anki_add_notes' or 'anki_create_deck'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the deck must exist, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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