Shopping List Set Note Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation ('set or update') but does not mention side effects, idempotency, or what happens if the item doesn't exist. For a simple note update, this might be acceptable, but it adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious mutation.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage distinction follows immediately. 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 low-complexity tool with two well-documented parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what it does and when to use it, and even references shopping_list_view_tool for obtaining the item ID, which aids correct invocation.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameters (item_id and note) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric for high schema 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 states a specific verb ('Set or update') and resource ('note on a shopping list item'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from shopping_list_update_tool by calling itself a simpler alternative. This clearly separates it from the sibling tool without needing to inspect the 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?

It explicitly says it's a simpler alternative to shopping_list_update_tool when only the note needs to be changed, providing a clear condition for when to use this tool and implying when not to (i.e., when other fields also need updating). This is direct guidance.

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