clear_cart

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: what is destroyed (the cart and every item in it) and the boundary that a submitted order is untouched.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive scope front-loaded and the exclusion immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation with annotations covering reversibility and safety, the description supplies the missing semantic context (items deleted, orders unaffected). It omits behavior on an already-empty or invalid cart, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries some burden; it does not explain what cart_id refers to or how to obtain it. The name is largely self-explanatory and the schema supplies a format pattern, so this is adequate but not enriched.

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 (Delete) and resource (the specified open cart) plus the blast radius (and all its items). The second sentence distinguishes it from order-cancellation tools, so an agent can separate it from place_order or remove_cart_item without opening a schema.

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?

Provides an explicit when-not: 'Does not cancel a submitted order,' which steers agents away from using this to undo a placed order. It stops short of naming a positive alternative (e.g., calling it only after get_cart when the cart is still open), so it is clear context without full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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