change_deck

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

Although no annotations are present, the description discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool is card-scoped and does not silently expand notes into cards. It references the underlying AnkiConnect function. However, it lacks details on side effects like scheduling changes or permissions, which would be needed for full transparency.

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 concise, with a clear purpose sentence followed by a necessary caveat and structured argument list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema presumably handling return values, the description completely covers what the tool does, its scope, and how to prepare inputs. No gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clearly defining both parameters: card_ids as card IDs to move, and deck with an example hierarchical name. It adds context about card vs note IDs, aiding correct usage.

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 explicitly states it moves cards into a different deck, specifies it operates on card IDs, and contrasts with note-level operations. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_note and inspect_cards.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: use card IDs, and if only note IDs are available, first call inspect_cards. It explains the rationale (cards from a note can be in different decks) and implicitly warns against misuse. This is excellent usage context.

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