instacart_add_to_cart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool searches and adds the first matching result, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the product isn't found, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes essential behavioral context. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with search behavior), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic operation but lacks details on prerequisites, errors, or return values, which could hinder agent effectiveness in edge cases.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('product' and 'quantity') adequately. The description adds minimal value by implying the 'product' parameter is used for searching, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema states, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Add a product') and resource ('to the Instacart cart'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'instacart_search' by specifying it adds the first matching result, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'instacart_view_cart' or 'instacart_clear_cart'.

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 description implies usage by mentioning it searches for the product and adds the first match, suggesting it's for adding items after a search. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'instacart_search' for browsing or 'instacart_view_cart' for checking contents, leaving some ambiguity.

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