remove_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Remove') but doesn't explain critical traits: whether this is a destructive mutation (implied but not explicit), if it requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure (e.g., order updates, error messages), or side effects (e.g., price recalculations). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 ('Remove an item') and includes essential details (target and ID source). There is no wasted text, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., destructiveness, error handling), usage context (e.g., order state requirements), and output expectations. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate safely and effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'itemId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the source ('shown in add_item and checkout responses'), which provides context but no new syntax or format details. This meets the baseline of 3 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 clearly states the verb ('Remove') and resource ('an item from the current order'), making the purpose unambiguous. It specifies the target ('by its order item ID'), which helps distinguish it from siblings like 'add_item' or 'checkout'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'apply_coupon' might also modify orders), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an existing order or item), exclusions (e.g., cannot remove items after checkout), or comparisons to siblings like 'add_item' or 'checkout'. This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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