add_buy_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adequately discloses that the tool performs a real write, increments quantity, and creates a row if absent. It does not mention potential errors or rate limits, but overall transparency is high.

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 sentences: the first covers core behavior, the second gives usage alternatives and auth requirement. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value.

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 simple add tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers usage context, alternatives, and authentication needs. It is complete and self-contained.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with well-described parameters (cardId UUID, isFoil boolean, quantity integer). The description adds no additional parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (add a card) and resource (buy-list), and explicitly distinguishes it from update_buy_list and remove_buy_list, which are sibling tools with different semantics.

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 tool description explicitly provides when-to-use guidance by naming alternatives (update_buy_list for absolute quantity, remove_buy_list for deletion) and mentions the authentication requirement (IWMM_API_KEY).

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