jumbo_add_shopping_list_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it flags that this WRITES to the user's real account, discloses the activation side effect for inactive lists and how to suppress it, and explicitly enumerates untouched resources. It omits auth/permission requirements and failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the write-to-real-account warning and the side effect front-loaded. 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical facts: it is a real write, it may activate the list, and it is scoped away from basket/checkout/orders/payments. Return-value expectations and error handling are not addressed, 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 100%, so all three parameters (items, dedupe, ensure_active) are already documented in the schema. The description's 'free-text items' phrasing and mention of ensure_active confirm intent but add no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 one or more free-text items to the user's Jumbo shopping list') with an example, and explicitly bounds scope against sibling concerns ('Never touches the basket, checkout, orders or payments'). An agent can distinguish it from jumbo_get_shopping_list, jumbo_remove_shopping_list_items and jumbo_get_basket without opening a schema.

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 clear context for when to use it (adding free-text items to the shopping list) and a concrete alternative behavior ('set ensure_active=false to skip' activation). It does not explicitly name sibling tools or when to prefer them, but the exclusions make the boundary unambiguous.

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