Create iFood cart

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint/readOnly, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context: the operation is gated by a feature flag and a user-intent boolean, and it does not finalize a purchase. No contradiction with 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the most important gating constraint; every sentence adds information (what, preconditions, boundary) with no filler.

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 with no output schema and an opaque items parameter, the description is incomplete. It covers safety and gating well but leaves the agent without enough detail on how to build items or which other parameters are relevant, so it is not fully callable from the description alone.

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 coverage is only 20%; the description mentions explicit_user_intent but says nothing about merchant_id, items, address_id, or response_format. The items parameter is particularly opaque, and the description does not compensate for the sparse schema, making correct parameter construction under-specified.

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?

Description states a 'gated write' on cw-marketplace with the title specifying cart creation, and explicitly says 'Does not checkout,' distinguishing it from ifood_checkout/ifood_get_cart. The verb and resource are clear enough for an agent to separate this from sibling tools.

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?

It names concrete prerequisites (IFOOD_ALLOW_MUTATIONS and explicit_user_intent) and excludes checkout behavior. It does not explicitly route to ifood_checkout as the alternative, but it gives clear when-to-use conditions and one when-not.

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