add_to_wantlist

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, but say nothing about the preview/apply workflow. The description adds the critical fact that the default is a non-mutating preview and that a second call with dry_run=false is required to apply — genuine behavioral context beyond structured data. It stops short of noting auth requirements or what the preview returns.

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 tightly scoped sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the critical dry-run behavior. No filler.

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 small mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation and its preview/apply mechanics adequately. The main shortfall is parameter detail (rating bounds, notes semantics) that neither the description nor the 0%-coverage schema supplies.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it clarifies that notes and rating are the updatable fields and that dry_run gates application. It does not describe release_id, the valid rating range, or the notes format, leaving gaps the schema does not fill.

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+resource ('Add a release to the wantlist') and adds the non-obvious upsert scope ('or update notes/rating if it's already there'). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like add_to_collection and rate_collection_item without opening any 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?

Clearly explains the dry-run-then-apply call protocol, which is the essential usage context for this tool. It does not, however, name alternatives (e.g., remove_from_wantlist or add_to_collection) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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