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

The description reveals only that this is a mutation ('Add') and introduces an unqualified constraint ('visible'), but it does not explain behavior like whether adding an existing saree increments quantity, whether stock availability is checked, or what side effects occur. The annotations already indicate a non-read-only mutation and no destructive hint, so the description adds little beyond them.

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 one short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. 'Visible' is somewhat ambiguous and could use clarification, but overall the description is appropriately terse for a simple mutation tool.

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-value details are not required, but the description is otherwise thin for a tool with multiple cart-related siblings. It leaves unclear what 'visible' means, whether the saree must exist, and what happens if a duplicate is added. The parameter semantics are also incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the parameters. It adds some meaning by identifying saree_id as a saree, but it says nothing about quantity semantics, the default of 1, the maximum of 20, or how quantity interacts with adding to the cart. The schema provides validation details but not the conceptual meaning.

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 action ('Add'), a resource ('a visible saree'), and a destination ('customer cart'), making the tool's purpose clear. It stands apart from siblings like remove_from_cart and set_cart_quantity by its verb and object, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate them.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_cart_quantity or remove_from_cart. There is no stated precondition, no mention of adding a new item versus updating quantity, and no exclusion of cases where the saree is already in the cart.

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