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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description earns credit for the genuinely new fact that reopening an entry re-queues it to Bring! on the next send — a real side effect not encoded anywhere in structured fields. It does not address partial-update semantics (whether omitted fields are preserved) or failure behavior, keeping it below 5.

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, front-loaded with the resource and the three available actions, with the downstream Bring! consequence placed as a trailing note where it belongs. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the actions, the status vocabulary, and the re-send side effect, which is enough to call it correctly. What remains thin is partial-update behavior and what happens when the id is invalid, which are left to the schema and error responses.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents detail and the status enum; the description mostly restates the status meaning ('done' = bought, 'open') rather than adding syntax, format, or constraints. shoppingItemId is never mentioned in the description, so it adds only marginal meaning over the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Change an entry on the Joiva shopping list') and enumerates the three operations it supports: mark done, reopen, or correct name/detail. This is clearly distinguishable in spirit from add/remove/list siblings, though it never names joiva_add_shopping_item or joiva_remove_shopping_item to draw the boundary explicitly.

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?

Each supported action is spelled out with its intent ('tick it off', 'reopen it', 'correct name or detail'), giving an agent clear context for selecting this tool. It stops short of exclusions — nothing tells the agent that deletion belongs to joiva_remove_shopping_item — so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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