submit_reviews

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the action is destructive, requires authentication, or is idempotent. It also does not mention the return value or potential side effects, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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, using two short paragraphs with a clear purpose statement followed by a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Despite the tool's complex parameter structure, the description provides enough detail to understand usage. An output schema exists but its omission is acceptable per guidelines. The description covers the core functionality and parameter semantics comprehensively.

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 fully compensates by detailing the structure of the 'reviews' parameter, including expected keys ('card_id' and 'rating') and valid enum values, which the input schema does not clearly convey due to its complex 'additionalProperties' design.

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 ('Submit multiple card reviews to Anki'), the resource ('card reviews'), and the specific ratings allowed, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'fetch_due_cards_for_review' (retrieval) and 'add_note' (creation).

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 when submitting card reviews with valid ratings, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'fetch_due_cards_for_review' for retrieving due cards, or any prerequisites or exclusions.

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