Remove from cart

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the return payload ('quantity left in the cart and the cart total'), telling the agent no follow-up get_cart call is needed after a partial removal.

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 with the mutation stated first, the data prerequisite second, and the return value last. Nothing is redundant and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the returned quantity and cart total. It is nearly complete for a 2-param mutation; the only gap is what happens when quantity exceeds what is in the cart.

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%, so both productId (pattern, example) and quantity (default, min/max) are already fully documented. The description only reinforces the productId source, which the schema also states, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a product from the user's Picnic shopping cart'), which clearly separates it from add_to_cart and set_cart_quantity by implication. It stops short of naming the sibling it differs from, so an agent must infer that set_cart_quantity is the absolute-overwrite alternative.

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?

'Get the product id from get_cart' gives an explicit prerequisite and data source, which is genuine routing guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over set_cart_quantity or add_to_cart, and no exclusion/edge-case guidance (e.g. removing more than present).

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