add_itemsAdds rows to an existing list. Takes the list's edit link and the rows; each row may name a folder, and a folder that doesn't exist yet is created.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| folder | No | A folder name for every row that doesn't name its own. | |
| edit_link | Yes | The list's edit link, whole (mahonia.app/e/CODE#token). The part after # is the write capability. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a folder that doesn't exist is created as a side effect, and rows may name a folder. It stops short of covering return values or failure modes.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action followed by the inputs and the notable side effect. Nothing could be cut without losing 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 three top-level parameters with a rich nested item schema, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description says enough to invoke the tool correctly. It could have noted where the edit link comes from or how partial failures are handled, but the gap is minor.
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 67% and the nested item properties are exhaustively documented in the schema already, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the folder-resolution behavior but adds little that isn't in the edit_link and folder field descriptions.
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 specific verb+resource ('Adds rows to an existing list'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling create_list: this one appends to a list that already exists. It doesn't explicitly name the distinction, but the wording makes the boundary clear enough to choose correctly.
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?
Usage is implied by 'an existing list' and the requirement of an edit link (so create_list must have run first), but no when/when-not guidance or alternative is named. An agent can infer the context but gets no explicit routing rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.