Update Rappi cart item

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is covered. The description adds the specific gating mechanism (RAPPI_ALLOW_MUTATIONS and explicit_user_intent), which is not in annotations, providing some behavioral context. However, it does not describe side effects, error handling, or what happens on invocation beyond the gate.

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 extremely brief (one short line), which is efficient but under-specified. It prioritizes the gating constraint but omits essential details about the tool's purpose and parameters, so it is not properly structured for an agent to act on.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the operation, parameter purposes, return values, or error behavior. Without this, an agent cannot reliably invoke it correctly, especially given the complexity.

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% (only explicit_user_intent has a description). The tool description provides no parameter semantics whatsoever. With such low coverage, the description should compensate by explaining key parameters like product_id, quantity, or store_id, but it remains silent, leaving agents to guess.

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 only states 'Gated write' with gating requirements, but never explicitly says it updates a cart item. The title and name imply the action, but the description itself is vague about the resource and verb. It distinguishes from siblings only by noting it's a write, which is insufficient.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rappi_add_to_cart or rappi_get_cart. It does not mention scenarios, preconditions beyond gating, or exclusions. The gating requirement is a condition, not usage guidance.

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