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 for behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the mutation ('Add') without revealing side effects, duplicate behavior, required existing list, or return behavior. An agent knows this writes but not what happens on success, failure, or duplicates.

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 tight and well-structured: a single-purpose opening line followed by a clearly formatted Args list. Every line contributes information, and the format is easy for an agent to parse.

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 straightforward add-item tool with no nested objects and an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, all parameters, and optionality. It is somewhat incomplete due to the absence of usage alternatives and behavioral consequences, but it gives enough to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 5 parameters, and it does: it defines list_id, provides a concrete note example, marks optionality for quantity, unit_id, and food_id, and names provenance tools ('get_units', 'searche_foods'). It adds meaningful operational detail beyond the raw schema, though it leaves the relationship between structured item fields vague.

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's action ('Add an item to a shopping list') and names the key resource. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's core purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like add_recipe_to_shopping_list.

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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as check_shopping_list_item, remove_shopping_list_item, or add_recipe_to_shopping_list. It implies general usage through the action verb but does not state preconditions, exclusions, or routing criteria.

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