update_flashcard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses pure patch semantics (only given fields changed), no revision snapshot, preservation of FSRS scheduling state and paused flag, no progress reset, and NOT_FOUND for other/nonexistent pairs. This gives the agent a complete picture of the tool's side effects.

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 block of several sentences, but each sentence provides a distinct piece of information: purpose, behavior, constraints, and usage context. It is front-loaded and not wastefully verbose, though it is longer than strictly necessary, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers purpose, parameter semantics, behavioral constraints, error condition (NOT_FOUND), and usage timing. The only gap is no mention of return values, but this is not critical for an update tool and the description is otherwise thorough.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying patch semantics — only provided fields are modified — and referencing update_concept precedent, which goes beyond the schema's simple 'optional' labels. This meaningfully aids parameter handling.

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 revises existing flashcard content fields (front/back/deck_id) using pure patch semantics. It clearly differentiates from add_flashcard and delete-recreate workflows, and references update_concept as a precedent, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: after verification/review catches card face issues, and explicitly advises against delete-and-rebuild, noting that rebuilding loses scheduling progress. It also states the constraint that only the current pair's cards can be modified, setting clear boundaries.

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