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

Adds substantive behavior beyond the annotations: the free-tier 25-bottle shelf cap vs unlimited Pro, and the preview/confirm workflow with the requirement to show the preview to the user before repeating the call with confirm_token. This is rare, high-value disclosure for a write tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose then constraints then the critical two-step protocol. No filler; each sentence carries actionable 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?

For a 13-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, quota, and confirm_token mechanics well. It could say more about what the preview returns and the consequences of the final call, but the essentials are present.

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 54% and the description adds no per-parameter detail beyond the confirm_token flow, which the schema already documents. Some parameters (proof, rating, distillery, purchase_price, purchased_from, is_favorite) are undocumented in both places, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Add a bottle') and the three destination targets (shelf, wishlist, Tried list), anchored to the app's Add Bottle form. It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like wishlist_add or add_bottle_from_photo, so it stops short of the top mark.

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?

Gives explicit procedural guidance for the two-step confirmation flow: first call previews and returns confirm_token, second call commits only after user agreement. It stops short of naming alternative tools (e.g., add_bottle_from_photo) that accomplish related goals.

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