Add an item to the cart (auto-resolve options)

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: resolves names to codes, auto-fills required choices, computes price, rejects out-of-stock items, appends to basket, returns catalog on unknown names, and dry_run does not save. This is comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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 dense paragraph but every sentence provides useful information. It is front-loaded with the main action and then details behaviors and parameters. It could be slightly more structured with bullets, but it remains concise and to the point.

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 covers the main workflow, failure case, language handling, and dry_run mode. However, since there is no output schema, it does not explicitly state what a successful add returns (e.g., updated cart or confirmation), which is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a complex mutation tool.

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%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains the `options` parameter with an example, clarifies that names or codes are accepted, and describes `lang` default behavior and `dry_run` semantics, which are not obvious from the schema alone.

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 'Add a menu item to the shop's server-side basket' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the plain-language option resolution and no price math, making it specific to this tool.

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 when to use it (adding an item to the basket) and provides operational guidance like using plain-language names and dry_run for preview. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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