lufa_save_basket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does excellently. It discloses that the tool is effectively a no-op that trivially returns success, requires an active session, and calls a legacy endpoint with no product specified. This is fully transparent about the behavior and side effects.

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 concisely written with every sentence serving a purpose: it states the non-essential nature, explains the rationale, describes the actual behavior, and notes the session requirement. It's front-loaded with the most important guidance ('Not required for normal use') and avoids wasted words.

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 tool with no schema parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what it does, why it exists, when to avoid it, and what to expect (trivial success). It also covers the session requirement. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide if and when to invoke it.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain individual parameters. The mention that it calls a legacy endpoint 'with no product specified' gives context about why the tool is a no-op, adding value beyond the empty schema. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description matches it.

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 that this tool is a legacy backwards-compatibility no-op that 'returns success trivially.' It explicitly identifies what it does (effectively nothing) and distinguishes it from the actively used basket tools, so the agent understands its exact purpose and scope.

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 explicitly says 'Not required for normal use' and explains that lufa_add_to_basket / lufa_remove_from_basket already persist to the server immediately. It also notes there is no confirm-order step in Lufa's site, providing clear when-not-to-use guidance and naming the alternatives.

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