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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a cart mutation and notes an options requirement for configurable parents, but it does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, idempotency, error behavior, or what happens on failure.

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 short and front-loads the core action. The Dutch translation repeats the same information and is redundant for most agents, but the overall structure remains efficient and easy to scan.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves required identifiers, quantity semantics, options structure, and mutation behavior largely unexplained.

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 five undocumented parameters. It only hints that 'variant' maps to sku and that 'options' may be needed for configurable parents; agentId, cartId, qty, and the options format remain unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a variant to the cart.' It also clarifies that configurable parents need options, which helps distinguish this from generic cart creation. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the purpose is clear enough to select it over gnv_cart_create or gnv_cart_remove.

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 only usage hint is 'A configurable parent needs options,' which is more of a parameter note than a when-to-use guideline. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like gnv_cart_create, nor any exclusion conditions.

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