Clear the cart

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

With no annotations given, the description carries the full burden. It covers destructive action (delete), server-side scope, non-effect on placed orders, and authentication. Missing details like irreversibility or empty-basket behavior, but still substantive.

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, each adding essential information: the operation, the exclusion of order cancellation, and the auth requirement. No redundancy or filler.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the main contextual aspects: scope, side effects, and prerequisites. It omits response behavior or edge cases, but these are less critical given no output schema and the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema fully describes restaurant_id with 100% coverage, and the description adds no further parameter-specific meaning. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a specific action (delete) and resource (server-side basket entirely), distinguishing it from siblings like remove_item that target individual items. The phrase 'removes it from the efood app' reinforces the full-scope deletion.

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?

It provides a clear exclusion ('does not cancel any placed order') and notes the authentication prerequisite, which informs when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for order cancellation, leaving room for improvement.

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