Remove from cart

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — that it reads the cart back, revealing the post-mutation state — but says nothing about failure modes or what happens if the product isn't in the cart.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the read-back behavior appended. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With a full output schema, annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, and complete parameter documentation, the description supplies what is missing: the fact that the response reflects the updated cart. Slightly more on error/no-op cases would be ideal.

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%, with both product_id and store documented and store enum-constrained, so the schema carries the burden. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

Specific verb ('Removes') plus resource ('a product from the cart') and a scoping word ('entirely') that implicitly distinguishes it from set_quantity. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 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 word 'entirely' implies this is the tool for full removal rather than quantity adjustment, but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is stated. Usage is only inferable from the wording.

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