update_buy_list

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

With empty annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the absolute set behavior and that quantity 0 removes the row. However, it does not mention error states (e.g., if cardId is invalid) or whether the operation is reversible, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 sentences only, each serving a purpose: first states the core action and exception for 0, second provides sibling differentiation and auth requirement. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain the return value or success/failure indicators. However, for a mutation tool with clear parameter semantics and sibling differentiation, it is nearly complete. Minor gap on return behavior.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining that the tool sets absolute quantity (not delta) and that 0 removes the row, clarifying the purpose of the quantity parameter beyond the schema's description.

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 sets absolute quantity for a buy-list card+finish, explicitly distinguishing it from add_buy_list (which increments). The verb 'Set' and resource 'buy-list card+finish' are specific.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool vs. add_buy_list ('Use add_buy_list to increment instead') and mentions the requirement for IWMM_API_KEY. It provides clear usage context without exclusions for other scenarios.

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