update_quantitySet the exact quantity of a product in an E.Leclerc Drive cart, using 0 to remove it. Provide the product ID and desired quantity to update the cart.
Fixe la quantité exacte d'un produit dans le panier (0 le retire).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quantity | Yes | Nouvelle quantité (0 pour retirer) | |
| product_id | Yes | Identifiant produit (champ id de search_product) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the crucial detail that a quantity of 0 deletes the line from the cart — the concrete destructive outcome the hint only gestures at. It does not cover permissions or behavior when the product is absent from the cart, which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
A single sentence with the core action front-loaded and the edge case in parentheses. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.
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 idempotent cart mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition supplies everything needed to call it correctly. Only the case of updating a product that is not in the cart is left unstated.
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% and both parameters carry their own descriptions, including the 0-means-remove semantics, so the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Fixe la quantité exacte d'un produit dans le panier') and clarifies the special case that a value of 0 removes the item. This sets it apart from add_to_cart and remove_from_cart in practice, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 parenthetical '(0 le retire)' implies when this tool substitutes for remove_from_cart, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over add_to_cart or remove_from_cart. The agent must infer the routing from the verb 'Fixe' alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.