Create Cards

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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight. It discloses that duplicates are skipped and that results contain null noteId for duplicates. However, it does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or detailed 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. No unnecessary information.

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 only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers use case and duplicate handling. However, it lacks guidance on deck existence prerequisites and does not detail return values beyond noteId.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that cards have front/back fields (Basic notes) and notes the duplicate behavior. But it does not explain the deck_name parameter (must exist?) or error 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 clearly states the action ('Add'), the resource type ('Basic note(s)'), and the target ('deck'). It also mentions duplicate handling, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_deck or update_card.

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 for adding Basic notes to a deck and mentions duplicate behavior, but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_card or list_cards. However, context from sibling tools helps infer.

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