check_off_shopping_item

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

With no annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral aspect: checking off does not add stock, and suggests using add_stock for that purpose. It also mentions the un-mark action. However, it doesn't specify whether the row is removed or remains marked in the list, a minor transparency gap.

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 succinct: two sentences of core explanation followed by a clean Args list. It front-loads the primary action and the critical caveat about stock, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, what it does not do, and parameter usage. It lacks details on the post-check state (e.g., whether the row is removed or remains), which could be inferred but isn't explicit. Given the simple 2-parameter scope, it is almost complete.

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%, but the description explicitly defines both parameters in the 'Args' section. 'item' is described as 'Product name or note text, as shown by list_shopping_list,' adding concrete guidance, and 'done' is explained as 'False to un-check a row checked off by mistake,' clarifying its boolean meaning beyond the default.

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 ('mark') and resource ('shopping list row') with a clear outcome ('as bought'), and explicitly mentions the un-mark capability. It distinguishes itself from the sibling add_stock by clarifying that checking off does not add stock, which prevents confusion.

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 provides a direct alternative: 'call add_stock for that' when stock needs to be added, and explains when to use the 'done' parameter (False to un-check a mistake). It also references list_shopping_list as the source for item names, giving clear context on when this tool applies.

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