Shopping List Set Amount Tool

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'change the quantity' – implying mutation – but does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., item must exist), whether the amount is overwritten or adjusted, or any error conditions. This is a significant gap 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?

Two short sentences: the first states the operation, the second provides usage guidance. No redundant phrasing, perfectly front-loaded. Every word 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 simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and use case adequately. However, because annotations are absent and the tool mutates data, the description should ideally disclose behavioral expectations (e.g., overwrite semantics, required item existence) to fully complete the picture for an agent.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description itself adds no extra parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but it does reference the item ID source in the schema. This meets the baseline for full coverage.

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 ('change the quantity') and the resource ('a shopping list item'), which directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like shopping_list_update_tool. The explicit mention of being a simpler alternative reinforces its specific role.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: 'when you only need to change the amount', and names the alternative (shopping_list_update_tool). This gives clear selection criteria without ambiguity.

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