rappi_reorderRebuild your Rappi cart from a previous order to reorder items. Adds products to your cart without checking out.
Rebuilds the cart from a past order. Gated cart write. Does not checkout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes | ||
| response_format | No | markdown | |
| explicit_user_intent | No | Must be true after the user explicitly asked for this write. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/destructive nature is known. The description adds the 'gated cart write' nuance and explicitly states that checkout is not performed, adding behavioral context beyond the structured fields. 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?
The description is three short sentences with zero fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the gating and checkout exclusions are stated economically. Every word 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?
The description covers the key operational facts: what it does, that it is a write, and that it does not checkout. Annotations carry the destructiveness. Parameters are mostly in the schema, and with no output schema, return values are not required. It lacks an explicit note that the current cart is replaced, but destructiveHint covers that.
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 33% (only explicit_user_intent has a description). The description implies that order_id is the past order ID but adds nothing about response_format or the gating condition in more detail. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate for ambiguous parameters.
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 states a specific verb ('rebuilds') and resource ('cart from a past order'), clearly distinguishing it from checkout and cart-modification siblings. 'Does not checkout' further separates it from place_order and checkout_preview.
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?
Clear context is provided: the tool rebuilds a cart from a past order and is a gated write. It does not name specific alternatives or exclusions explicitly, but the checkout exclusion and the cart-write nature give the agent enough to select it appropriately among the many cart/order siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.