Add items to a shopping list

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it mutates data but is not destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether appending or replacing occurs, what happens on duplicate items, or any authentication requirements. For a mutation tool, the lack of detail on idempotency or side effects is a notable gap.

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 long, both sentences earn their place: the first states the core action and format, the second provides important behavioral context relative to a sibling tool. No filler or redundancy.

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 the tool has no output schema and only 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage, the description adequately covers the key usage context and limitations. A small improvement would be to mention the list_id source explicitly (already in schema, but echoed in description could help). Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for an add-items tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a free-text example ('2 tbsp olive oil') that reinforces the items parameter's purpose but does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides for either parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Adds') and resource ('items to a shopping list'), clarifies that input is free text with an example, and distinguishes itself from the sibling parse_ingredients tool by noting that Mealie does not auto-split ingredients.

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 NOT use this tool for ingredient parsing ('run parse_ingredients first if that matters'), providing clear guidance on the alternative sibling tool and the context for its use.

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