remove_from_cart

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides almost nothing: it does not say whether removal is reversible, what happens if line_id does not exist, whether the cart must be non-empty, or whether an updated cart is returned. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. Its brevity is efficient but shades into under-specification for a 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?

Given a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, an undocumented required parameter, and six sibling tools, the description does not supply enough for an agent to call it confidently or predict the result.

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 0% and there is exactly one parameter, line_id, whose meaning the description only weakly implies via 'une ligne du panier'. It never says whether this is a database ID, a SKU, or a positional index, nor how to obtain it (presumably from view_cart).

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 verb + resource is specific: it removes a single line from the cart, which implicitly distinguishes it from add_to_cart, add_many_to_cart and update_cart_line. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of update_cart_line (e.g. quantity-to-zero) or view_cart, and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer the routing from the tool name alone.

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