Add items to iFood cart

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

Despite annotations already indicating a non-read-only, destructive write operation, the description adds real behavioral context: '401 JSON no-jwt' describes auth failure behavior, 'Item subpaths 404' hints at error behavior, and 'Dual-gated' discloses a gating requirement. 'Does not checkout' clarifies scope beyond the annotations.

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 very short and every fragment carries some information, but it is telegraphic and jargon-heavy ('cw-marketplace', '401 JSON no-jwt', 'Dual-gated'). It is not well structured for an agent to parse cleanly.

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?

With no output schema, low parameter coverage, and ambiguous overlap with siblings like ifood_create_cart and ifood_checkout, the description is not complete enough. It leaves the agent unsure about return values, exact invocation semantics, and the meaning of the dual-gating requirement.

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 only 20%, and the description does not explain items, merchant_id, address_id, or response_format. It adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's structure, and the only useful param context comes from explicit_user_intent's schema description rather than the tool description.

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 title and name clearly say 'add to cart', and the description's 'POST /v1/carts' plus 'Does not checkout' gives a rough sense of the operation. However, the description itself is cryptic and never plainly states 'adds items to the cart'; it relies on the title and tool name for meaning.

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 gives almost no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like ifood_create_cart or ifood_checkout. 'Does not checkout' is a useful negative signal, but there is no explicit statement of when this tool is appropriate or which alternative should be chosen instead.

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