Discogs: add release to wantlist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the release is added, without mentioning authentication requirements, idempotency, error handling (e.g., if the release is already in the wantlist), or return value. 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters with zero schema descriptions, this description is inadequate. It does not explain what happens on success, what the response looks like, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'notes and a rating' without explaining their format or constraints (e.g., rating range 0-5). It fails to even mention the required release_id parameter, leaving its meaning and required format unclear in the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('release to the authenticated user's wantlist'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like discogs_add_to_collection or discogs_get_wantlist. It also mentions optional notes and rating, which are distinctive features.

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 implies the tool is for adding releases to one's own wantlist, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like discogs_add_to_collection or discogs_remove_from_wantlist. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the usage context somewhat implicit.

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