add_to_items_plan

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

Since annotations are absent, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning effects like duplicate handling, return values, or potential side effects. The existence of an output schema is not mentioned.

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 a single concise sentence, but it omits essential details. While brevity is valued, the lack of parameter or usage information makes it borderline under-specified for an agent to use correctly.

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 the tool has 2 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values (despite an output schema existing) or provide any context for safe and effective use.

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 0%, and the description adds no information about the two parameters: 'task_id' (required) and 'date' (optional). It does not explain what 'task_id' refers to or how 'date' should be formatted, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 clearly states the action ('Add') and the target ('an item to the daily plan'). It is specific enough to convey the core purpose, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'add_to_plan', which may have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_to_plan' or 'remove_from_items_plan'. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or contexts where the tool is inappropriate.

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