add_recipe_to_shopping_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and the is_custom flag, but does not clarify side effects such as whether existing shopping list items are appended or overwritten, how non-custom recipes are resolved, or potential error conditions.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a precise parameter hint. There is no fluff or repetition, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the core action and one parameter nuance, but lacks behavioral details, usage scenarios, or return-value information. It is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps that an agent would need to infer from sibling tool names or additional context.

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. It adds value by explaining is_custom ('For own custom recipes set is_custom=true'), which is not self-evident from the schema. However, it does not elaborate on recipe_id beyond its name, leaving some ambiguity about what constitutes a valid recipe source.

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 function: 'Setzt die Zutaten eines Rezepts auf die Einkaufsliste' (adds a recipe's ingredients to the shopping list). This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from siblings like add_items_to_shopping_list, which handles arbitrary items.

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 includes a parameter-specific instruction for custom recipes ('Fuer eigene Custom-Rezepte is_custom=true setzen'), which provides some guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as add_items_to_shopping_list or add_recipe_to_meal_plan, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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