reading_collect_card

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies persistence ('so it can be revisited later') but does not state whether this creates, updates, or moves data, what side effects occur, or what the return value is.

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 concise sentence with no redundant phrasing, but the structure is too sparse for a tool with 14 parameters. It front-loads the action but omits necessary detail.

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?

With 14 parameters, no output schema, no annotation-based safety hints, and many sibling tools in the same card/save domain, this description is far too incomplete. An agent cannot reliably determine what inputs to supply or what invoking this tool accomplishes.

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 14 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. None of the parameters like art, scope, chunkId, or variant are explained, leaving an agent unable to determine what values are 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 states a clear action ('Collect') and resource ('reading card/bookmark'), with a stated purpose of revisiting later. However, it does not differentiate 'collect' from sibling tools like reading_save_card or reading_card_collection, and the word 'ritual' adds ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reading_save_card, reading_dismiss_card, or reading_card_inbox. The purpose clause is too generic to establish selection criteria.

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