Add To Shopping List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the auth prerequisite and the ID-format expectations for the two recipe sources. However, it never says whether items are appended to or replace the existing shopping list, what happens on partially-invalid IDs, or whether quantities are merged — material gaps for a mutation with zero annotation coverage.

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 ID-format caveat, then the prerequisite. Every sentence adds information an agent needs and none repeat the schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the single parameter plus auth prerequisite are covered. The only shortfall is the unstated append-vs-replace semantics of the shopping-list mutation, which matters given no annotations.

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 would be 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Recipe IDs, comma-separated': it gives concrete ID shapes ('r59322' for catalogue, '01M5...' for own recipes) and states both kinds can be mixed in the single string.

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 ('Add the ingredients ... to your Cookidoo shopping list'), which is distinct from every sibling tool (plan_recipe, search_recipes, upload_custom_recipe, etc.) since none of them touch the shopping list. It never names a sibling or contrasts with one, but the resource is unique enough that misselection is unlikely.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite ('You must be connected first using connect_to_cookidoo') and names that tool explicitly, which routes the agent correctly. It also notes that catalogue and personal recipes can be mixed in one call. It stops short of any when-not guidance, e.g. what to do if the list already has items or whether plan_recipe should be preferred instead.

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