Add a product to this API key's inventory. Requires a verified account (sign in at https://app.recallkitchen.com with the signup email). Unverified signup keys cannot add inventory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | No | optional SKU or UPC | |
| name | Yes | product name | |
| brand | No | optional brand | |
| category | No | optional category |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| sku | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| brand | Yes | ||
| category | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a state-changing, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds a meaningful behavioral prerequisite not present in annotations: the API key must belong to a verified account. This is exactly the kind of auth-related context that helps an agent anticipate failures.
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 with the primary action front-loaded. The second sentence adds a specific failure condition rather than repeating generic information, so both sentences earn their place.
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 simple 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and meaningful annotations, the description is complete. It covers the key context beyond the schema: scope is tied to the API key's inventory, and account verification is required. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 100%, and each parameter already has a concise explanation. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema fully documents the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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: 'Add a product to this API key's inventory.' This clearly states the operation and scope, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like remove_inventory_product, list_inventory, and add_watch_pattern without ambiguity.
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 gives clear context by stating that a verified account is required and that unverified signup keys cannot add inventory. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but it makes the prerequisite and the main exclusion ('unverified signup keys') clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct roles, and the descriptions explicitly separate product lookup from recall search. However, the multiple recall search entry points (by query, UPC, image, and identifier) overlap enough that an agent could pick the wrong one without carefully reading the details.
Tool names consistently follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern such as add_, list_, remove_, search_, get_, create_, revoke_, and mark_. The single-word signup is the only minor deviation, but it does not undermine the overall naming system.
At 19 tools, the set is in the borderline-heavy range. The count is justified by the multiple subdomains like API key management, inventory, watch patterns, notifications, and recall searching, but it still feels slightly above the ideal well-scoped tool surface.
Core recall search, product lookup, inventory tracking, watch pattern management, notifications, and API key lifecycle are all covered well. Minor gaps exist such as no way to update a watch pattern or view account usage limits, but agents can generally work around them.