Add To OlaOla Cart

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the conditional behavior of auto mode and the confirmed flag requirement for real cart changes. However, it omits many behavioral traits: whether adding is destructive (appends or replaces), authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The information provided is useful but incomplete.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. However, given the complexity (6 parameters, 3 modes), it sacrifices needed detail. It could be expanded without becoming verbose.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain the return value, error scenarios, or how the tool interacts with other cart operations. The presence of sibling tools increases the need for contextual guidance, which is lacking.

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 0%, so the description must explain all 6 parameters. It only mentions 'confirmed' indirectly and does not describe mode values, cartId, quantity, variantId, or productUrlOrSlug. This is a critical gap; the agent cannot understand how to populate the parameters correctly.

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 a product to the user's OlaOla cart') and resource, and introduces three modes (auto, account, shadow) that distinguish behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like olaola_add_to_account_cart or olaola_add_to_shadow_cart, which serve more specific purposes.

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 context for when auto mode is appropriate ('when credentials are configured' vs. shadow), and states that 'Real account cart changes require confirmed=true'. However, it does not give explicit guidance on when to use this unified tool versus the more specific sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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