add_to_cart

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Add an item' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires authentication, if it modifies existing cart state, what happens on duplicate items, error conditions, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for this tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the core purpose efficiently.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address authentication requirements, error handling, response format, or how this integrates with the cart management workflow involving sibling tools. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively in real scenarios.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that storeId, menuId, and itemId should be consistent) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Add an item') and target ('to your DoorDash cart'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_from_cart' or explain how it relates to 'list_carts' in terms of cart management workflow.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing to be logged in via 'login_check'), how it interacts with 'list_carts' for viewing cart contents, or when to use 'remove_from_cart' instead. There's no context about when this operation is appropriate.

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