grocy_objects_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful dry-run semantics and the endpoint mapping, but says nothing about validation failures, what happens when fields are missing or wrong, or that each entity has its own required field set — the main failure mode for this tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the endpoint, then the parameter role, then the dry-run caveat — no filler and nothing repeated from the schema verbatim.

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 generic create over 35 entity types with an unconstrained free-form fields object and no output schema, the description should point at how to learn required fields (e.g. via grocy_objects_list or entity metadata). Dry-run and endpoint context help, but an agent can still easily call this with an invalid field set and no way to know in advance.

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% and the enum of 35 entities plus the confirm const-rejection behavior are fully documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that fields is the entity JSON, which clarifies the free-form object but adds no formatting or per-entity field guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create one Grocy object") and pins the underlying endpoint POST /api/objects/{entity}. The "one" and "create" wording implicitly distinguishes it from grocy_objects_update/delete, though those siblings are never named.

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 dry-run convention ("Omit confirm for a dry-run") is a real usage rule, but there is no guidance on when to use this generic creator versus entity-specific siblings like grocy_users_create, grocy_stock_add, or grocy_objects_update, and no mention of how to discover valid fields per entity.

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