Albert Heijn: Add to Favourite List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is an additive mutation, and the description correctly implies that. It adds little beyond that: no mention of duplicate handling (whether adding an existing product bumps quantity or adds a second entry), no auth/permission notes, and no error behavior for an invalid list_id.

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 with zero waste; the action is front-loaded and the prerequisite follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 simple two-parameter additive mutation with fully described params and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. However, the agent is left guessing about merge-vs-duplicate behavior on re-add and about failure modes, which are the main open questions for this tool.

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 100%, so both parameters and the nested item fields are already documented, including 'Quantity 0 is treated as 1' and the 50-item cap. The description's only parameter statement, that list_id comes from ah_get_favorite_lists, repeats the schema's own text, so it adds no new semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Add products') and a specific resource ('a named Albert Heijn favorite list'), which separates it from the shopping-list and cart siblings by resource noun. It never explicitly contrasts those siblings, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can pick it from the list.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite: 'Get list_id from ah_get_favorite_lists.' That is clear routing to the right sibling for setup. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g. use ah_add_to_shopping_list for the cart/shopping list instead) or what happens if the list does not exist.

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