Remove Shopping List Items

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by defining the boundary of what gets destroyed — only manually added entries, never recipe-derived ones — which prevents accidental over-deletion. It stops short of stating irreversibility or whether partial failures roll back, so not a full 5.

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, zero waste. The positive scope statement comes first and the exclusion/alternative follows immediately, which is the correct front-loading for a destructive tool.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage, explicit annotations, and an output schema, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing. Scope, exclusion, and the alternative tool are all covered.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents that IDs come from get_shopping_list. The description still reinforces the semantic constraint on item_ids (must be hand-added entries), which tells the agent that recipe-ingredient IDs are invalid input here — meaning beyond the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) plus resource (shopping list items) and narrows the scope to hand-added items only. It explicitly names the sibling that handles the excluded case, so an agent can distinguish it from remove_recipes_from_shopping_list without reading either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: hand-added items go here, recipe ingredients go to remove_recipes_from_shopping_list. The condition that selects the alternative is stated outright, leaving nothing to inference.

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