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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds genuinely new information by disclosing the cross-entity side effect (an entry is created on the shopping list). It does not say whether the supplement record is archived or deleted, nor whether a duplicate shopping item is avoided when called twice.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the consequence. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and for a destructive mutation the description omits what happens to the supplement itself (deleted vs archived vs marked depleted) and whether existing intake history or schedule entries are affected. The shopping-list side effect is captured, but the primary mutation is underspecified.

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 0% for the single required supplementId, so the schema carries no semantics. The description only implies 'the supplement' via the noun; it never states that the parameter is the supplement identifier or which identifier form is expected. Adequate only because a single required id parameter is self-evident from its name.

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?

States a specific verb ('mark as used up') and resource ('supplement') plus the resulting effect. It is distinguishable from siblings like stackwell_pause_supplement or stackwell_archive_supplement by the 'used up' framing, though it never names those alternatives to make the contrast explicit.

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 'used up' — call this when a supplement runs out — but no guidance is given on when to choose this over archiving, pausing, or simply adjusting the schedule. No prerequisites or exclusions.

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