add_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it adds an item and lists some recordable fields, but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, return values, or whether certain parameters are ignored under conditions. Minimal behavioral transparency.

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 with two short sentences. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose; the second lists example fields, which is partly redundant with the schema but does not bloat the text. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not cover usage context, behavior, return values, or how it differs from scanning-based addition. The description only provides a basic label rather than complete operational guidance.

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 input schema already documents all 12 parameters. The description mentions a few example fields (name, location, expiry) but adds no extra semantic meaning, relationships, or parameter-specific nuances beyond the schema. Baseline score applies.

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 action ('添加新物品' - add new item) and the resource, and briefly mentions the types of information that can be recorded. It distinguishes from read-only siblings like query_items and get_item, though it does not explicitly differentiate from scan_add_item.

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 scan_add_item. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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