Mark Shopping List Items

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and repeat-call behavior need no restatement. The description's genuinely new content is the clause about applying to both recipe ingredients and hand-added items; it does not say what happens when an item_id is not currently on the list, nor mention the 50-item cap. With annotations carrying the behavior profile, a moderate score is appropriate.

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 the primary action and its toggle semantics front-loaded and the scope caveat second. No redundant framing or filler; every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover mutation safety and idempotency. What remains unsaid is minor but real: behavior for IDs not present on the list and the 50-item batch ceiling (schema-only). For this low-complexity two-parameter toggle it is nearly complete.

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% and the schema already documents both parameters, including owned's default of true and the meaning of false, plus the maxItems=50 constraint and the pointer to get_shopping_list as the ID source. The description mainly restates the owned toggle and adds no syntax, ordering, or batching detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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?

Names a specific verb (tick/untick) and resource (shopping list items), and makes the owned=true/false toggle explicit, which distinguishes it from removal-style siblings such as remove_shopping_list_items. It does not name any sibling or state what it deliberately does not do (e.g. that it never deletes items), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"Works for recipe ingredients and for items added by hand" gives clear scope for when this tool applies, which is useful because the sibling set splits recipe-sourced and manual list operations. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. use remove_shopping_list_items to delete), so it is contextual guidance rather than full routing guidance.

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