add_shopping_item

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains article matching logic (reuse vs create), and returns ArticleDto. It also mentions listId as optional in stdio mode. Minor lack: doesn't specify which shopping list is used if listId omitted, but still adequate.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds behavioral nuance, the third provides usage guidance with sibling references. Every sentence earns its 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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions the return type 'ArticleDto', which is sufficient. Input parameters fully covered. Alternative tools referenced. Only minor gap: no explanation of what the 'shopping list' is, but context implies the user's main list.

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 100%, but description adds value by explaining case-insensitive matching for name and the context-dependent optionality of listId. This goes beyond what the schema descriptions alone provide.

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 starts with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Add an item to the shopping list by name.' It distinguishes from siblings by naming specific alternatives like add_pantry_item and check_shopping_item.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'To add directly to the pantry instead use add_pantry_item; to mark an existing shopping item bought use check_shopping_item.' It also clarifies listId optionality across modes.

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