add_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that macros are per 100g, explains the two source options (verified vs estimated) with a recommendation, and states that the new product id is returned. However, it does not mention error cases, duplicate handling, or any required permissions, which would be expected 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 four short sentences, each providing distinct value: purpose, unit context, source semantics, and return value. It is front-loaded with the action and avoids any filler or repetition of schema details.

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 12-parameter creation tool with no annotations, the description covers the most important context: units, source trust levels, and the return value. It is not exhaustive (e.g., no duplicate handling), but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool in most scenarios.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the meaning of the nutritional fields ('Macros are per 100g') and clarifying the source parameter ('verified' from package label, 'estimated' from general knowledge). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema. It does not individually describe optional fields like salt or fibre, but the per-100g context applies to all.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Add a Product to the Catalog.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_product, log_food, and delete_food_entry. The verb 'Add' and object 'Product/Catalog' make the tool's function unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when adding a product to the catalog. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrasing 'Add a Product to the Catalog' makes the intended use obvious among the listed sibling tools. The additional notes on units and source further clarify correct usage.

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