Shopping List Add Tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation adds a product, but does not explain what happens on duplicate products, whether it merges with existing entries, how list_id defaults behave, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It loses a point because it borders on restating the title and provides no additional context, but it is structurally clean and immediately readable.

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 existence of many closely related shopping-list tools and four parameters, this minimal description is not complete enough. It does not address use cases, edge cases, or how the add operation behaves relative to sibling tools, leaving an agent to guess at key invocation decisions.

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 every parameter (product, amount, note, list_id) already has a clear schema description with defaults and examples. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 states a clear verb ('Add') and a specific resource ('product to the shopping list'), making the core operation obvious. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like shopping_list_add_missing_tool or recipe_add_to_shopping_tool, though the phrasing is specific enough that an agent can infer the primary target.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many shopping-list siblings (view, update, remove, clear, add_missing, set_amount, set_note). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions, so an agent must rely on the tool name alone.

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