grocy_shopping_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, so the write/destructive profile is known. The description contributes the dry-run behavior and reinforces 'All writes', but never says what `clear` destroys or whether existing list items are replaced or appended by the add_* actions. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.

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 telegraphic sentences with no filler, and the action list is front-loaded after the resource name. Slightly clipped to the point of under-specification, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A destructive, 8-parameter multi-action tool with no output schema and 13% schema coverage needs substantially more description: per-action parameter requirements and what each action returns in dry-run versus execute mode. The definition gives none of that, so an agent must guess which fields to populate for a given action.

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 only 13% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it does not. It never maps params to actions: which of list_id, product_id, product_amount, qu_id, note, or done_only belongs to add_product versus clear is left entirely to inference. Only the confirm/dry-run semantic gets any prose, which the schema already covers.

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 names the resource (shopping list) and enumerates the six supported actions, so an agent can see this is a shopping-list mutation surface rather than a stock or recipe tool. The opener 'Shopping list helpers' is vague, but the action enumeration carries the specific meaning. It is distinguishable from grocy_print_shoppinglist and grocy_recipe_add_missing_to_shoppinglist by virtue of being the direct list-management tool.

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 implies usage through the action list but never states when to pick this over grocy_recipe_add_missing_to_shoppinglist or grocy_stock_add. The one explicit usage instruction is 'Omit confirm for a dry-run', which tells the agent a safe preview workflow exists. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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