add_planner_ingredient

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 indicates mutation with 'Add' but does not mention side effects, idempotency, or whether the entry appends to existing content. For a simple add operation, this is acceptable, but a more explicit note on behavior (e.g., 'appends to the slot') would improve transparency.

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 an illustrative example. Every word serves to clarify the tool's purpose and parameter roles. There is no redundant filler.

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 add operation with no output schema, the description covers the core intent and parameter meanings via the example. It does not restate schema constraints (which are already in the schema), but it provides enough context for an agent to correctly construct a call. Slight gaps remain regarding error behavior or any side effects, but they are minor for this tool type.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The example '2 lbs ground beef' attached to 'Wednesday dinner' maps implicitly to the title, date, and section parameters respectively. This clarifies the semantic meaning of the three parameters beyond the bare schema, though it does not explicitly name each parameter.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'freeform ingredient entry to a meal slot', with a concrete example ('2 lbs ground beef' attached to Wednesday dinner). This differentiates it from sibling tools like add_planner_recipe (which likely adds a recipe) and add_planner_note (which adds a note) by emphasizing 'freeform ingredient'.

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 usage via the example (attaching an ingredient to a meal slot) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_planner_recipe or add_leftover_meal. It relies on the 'freeform' wording to signal a distinction, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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