add_flashcard

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, but only states that FSRS state is initialized by the server. Other important behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency behavior, plain-text rendering, concept_id existence check, grouping semantics) are left to the schema descriptions, not the tool description. This falls short of 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 one short, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is appropriately concise but lacks additional context that would make it more useful. No word is wasted, but the brevity limits its overall contribution.

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 having 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is extremely minimal. It does not explain what a flashcard is, how it relates to other entities, or what the expected result/return value is. The schema descriptions partially compensate, but the overall description is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. However, the schema descriptions are quite rich, so the baseline is appropriate.

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 '添加一张闪卡' clearly states the action (add) and the resource (flashcard), using a specific verb+resource format that directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_flashcard. The added note about FSRS state initialization further clarifies the tool's scope.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or recommendations. Although parameter schemas include some usage hints (e.g., deck_id guidance), the tool description itself offers no such direction.

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