card_add

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the description's only added value is 'Returns the new Card.' Critically, it does not explain the add-vs-update decision, whether calling twice creates duplicates (idempotentHint=false makes this a real risk), or how fields map when a notetype differs.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, no filler prose. The 'plus 2 more' truncation is the one wasted element—listing back and tags would have cost no more space.

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 mutating, non-idempotent creation tool with no output schema and zero required parameters, the description should cover duplicate risk, which fields are meaningful per notetype, and what 'update' targets. None of that is present, leaving an agent likely to call with only a front field and no understanding of the resulting note.

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 100%, so per-property descriptions already carry the semantics; baseline is 3. The description's parameter mention ('deck, notetype, front (plus 2 more)') is vague and omits that all parameters are optional and that notetype defaults to Basic.

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?

States a verb (add/update) and resource (note/card in AnkiWeb collection), which is enough to place it against read-only siblings like card_get or card_search. But 'update' is unclear: the schema has no card/note identifier, so an agent cannot tell how an existing card would be targeted. The 'plus 2 more' phrasing is a hedge rather than a specification.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives such as card_import (bulk) or card_search/card_get (read paths). The agent must infer that this is the single-card creation path from the name alone.

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