add_shopping_list_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the action ('Add') but does not mention any side effects, required permissions, whether the list must exist, or what happens on duplicate items. This is a minimal mutation tool description with no behavioral depth.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase adds value. It is appropriately concise without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, 6 parameters, and nested objects, the description is too sparse to be fully contextual. It does not mention that food and unit are nested objects requiring names, nor does it differentiate from add_recipe_to_shopping_list. The schema covers parameter details, but the description lacks operational context for a mutation 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some extra meaning by highlighting that quantity, unit, food, or a note can be provided, but it does not clarify relationships between parameters or the required shoppingListId beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('item to a shopping list'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It also mentions flexible content types (quantity, unit, food, note), which helps distinguish it from add_recipe_to_shopping_list, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 usage context is implied: it is for adding an ad-hoc item to a shopping list. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus add_recipe_to_shopping_list or update_shopping_list_item, and no exclusions are stated.

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