Check notes can be added

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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, it discloses the result shape, positional correspondence with inputs, and common causes of false: duplicates, an empty first field, or an unknown deck/model. "Does not change anything" reinforces the annotations, and the return-behavior details are especially valuable because there is no output schema.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the relationship to add_notes, then explain results, common failures, and non-mutation. There is no filler or unnecessary recitation of the input schema.

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 single-argument validation tool with a rich input schema and clear safety annotations, the description supplies the missing output contract and practical interpretation of false. The word "usually" appropriately signals that the listed failure causes are non-exhaustive, and no material invocation detail appears missing.

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 schema already fully documents the notes argument and its nested fields. The description adds useful validation semantics not captured there, particularly per-input result ordering and failure conditions involving duplicates, the first field, and deck/model validity.

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?

It identifies the operation as a dry run for the sibling add_notes tool, making clear that it checks creatability rather than creating notes. The per-note boolean result and input-order mapping make 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?

"Dry run for add_notes" provides clear preflight-validation context and distinguishes this tool from performing the actual addition. However, it does not explicitly say when to run this check or when calling add_notes directly is appropriate.

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