add_ignored_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 only states the tool adds an ingredient and returns a confirmation, but fails to disclose crucial behaviors like handling duplicates, case sensitivity, idempotency, or whether changes are persistent or scoped to a user/session.

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 concise: a single sentence stating the action, followed by compact Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose. The structured format is slightly verbose but acceptable. No superfluous content.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally complete: it defines the action and parameter. However, it lacks details on how this tool fits into the broader workflow (e.g., effect on meal plan generation), duplicate handling, and relationship to the sibling 'get_ignored_ingredients'. More context would be beneficial.

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?

The input schema has 0% coverage (no property descriptions), so the description must compensate. It adds the meaning that 'ingredient' is 'The name of the ingredient to ignore', which clarifies the parameter beyond the schema's bare title 'Ingredient'. However, it does not specify constraints like allowed characters, length, or uniqueness.

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 tool's purpose: 'Add an ingredient to the ignored ingredients list.' It uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('ignored ingredients list'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'get_ignored_ingredients'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_ignored_ingredients' or other sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for using this tool.

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