add_to_cart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states it adds a product and returns the cart, but does not disclose idempotency, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing items), authentication requirements, or error handling (e.g., invalid product id). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence that is clear and to the point. It avoids unnecessary words. Could be slightly improved by separating the return behavior, but it remains concise and front-loaded.

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 the tool has two parameters and an output schema (unknown content), the description is minimal. It does not explain what happens if the product is out of stock, if the cart is empty, or any constraints. No error handling or assumptions are stated, making it incomplete for a transactional context.

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?

The description provides context for 'pid' as 'SFCC product id', which adds value beyond the schema (which has no description). However, 'quantity' is left unexplained (default 1), and the schema has 0% description coverage. Overall, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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'), the resource ('a product to the cart'), and that it returns the updated cart. It specifically mentions 'by SFCC product id' which is the key identifier. This distinguishes it from siblings like view_cart (view) and confirm_order (confirms).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that it should be used for adding items to the cart, while view_cart is for checking current contents. No context about prerequisites (e.g., quantity limitations) or post-conditions.

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