resolve_item_to_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions resolution using catalog and history, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what happens on failure, or the structure of the response (recommendedAction, suggestedTargets).

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to understand the tool's function quickly.

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?

The description references 'recommendedAction' and 'suggestedTargets' but does not explain their structure or how to interpret them. With no output schema and missing edge-case handling (e.g., no match), the agent lacks critical context to use the result correctly.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value for 'listId' by explaining its role when omitted, and for 'query' by clarifying it is user-provided text. 'limit' is not further elaborated, but the overall semantic gain is solid.

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 resolves ambiguous or natural-language item text using the master catalog and shopping-list history before adding. It uses a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('item text'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'add_item' by its pre-add purpose.

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 advises to 'Follow the recommendedAction' and provides guidance on handling cases without a listId. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions and does not name alternative tools for unambiguous queries.

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