add_shopping_list_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that food/unit names or IDs are accepted, but does not disclose side effects such as duplicate handling, permission requirements, or whether the operation appends or merges. The mutation behavior is implied but not elaborated.

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 a single, compact sentence that communicates the core action and key flexibility (names/IDs) without redundancy or filler. It earns its place with no unnecessary 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?

The description is adequate for a simple add operation, and the schema supplies parameter details. However, it lacks guidance on use cases (e.g., when to prefer update) and behavioral caveats, making it incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema. The absence of return-value information is acceptable given no output schema, but the missing usage context lowers the score.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating that food/unit can be names or IDs, which is already in the schema. No additional parameter insights or cross-parameter relationships are provided.

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 ('Add') and a clear resource ('item to the shopping list'), which precisely conveys the action. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_shopping_list_item and remove_shopping_list_item by indicating a create operation.

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 use for adding new items but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., update for existing items, remove for deleting). No exclusions or alternative tool references are mentioned, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria beyond the verb 'add'.

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