update_anki_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. It mentions an optional API key but doesn't explain authentication needs or defaults.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a parameter list. However, the 'Args:' section is somewhat redundant with the schema and could be more integrated. It's concise but misses opportunities to embed usage context within the flow, making it slightly less efficient.

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 complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, mutation operation) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error cases). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but overall it's adequate with clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for all 4 parameters: 'note_id' as the ID to update, 'fields' as field_name:new_value mappings, 'tags' as new tags (optional), and 'anki_api_key' as an optional API key. This adds clarity beyond the bare schema, though it lacks format details (e.g., tag array structure).

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing Anki note'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_flashcards' and 'delete_anki_notes' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'upload_to_anki' in terms of 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing note ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'upload_to_anki' or 'search_anki_notes'. The description only lists parameters without contextual usage advice.

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