Ajouter au panier

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces the non-idempotent trait concretely by explaining that additions accumulate onto existing cart contents. It does not mention the per-call ceiling (max 99) or what happens when the cart limit is hit, which the schema only partially covers via the `maximum` constraint.

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?

Two short sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines the additive behavior, the second routes to the sibling. No restatement of the title or schema.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations covering the safety profile, the definition covers the one genuinely ambiguous aspect (delta vs. absolute quantity). The only gap is the absence of an output schema combined with no mention of what is returned (updated cart, line item, confirmation), which would help an agent chain calls to get_cart.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema text: 'quantity' is a delta to add rather than a target value, which the schema's 'Nombre d'unités à ajouter' only implies. The reference to product_id being the `id` field from search_product is supplied by the schema rather than the 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?

States a specific verb and resource (adds N units of a product to the cart) and immediately clarifies the semantics: 'en plus de ce qui y est déjà' — additive, not setting. This distinguishes it from update_quantity by name, so an agent can choose without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Pour fixer une quantité exacte, utilise update_quantity.' The when-not case (wanting an exact quantity) is stated rather than inferred, which is exactly the routing an agent needs.

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