Prepare recipe cart handoff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the safety profile. The description adds useful context beyond that - it saves a commerce session and deliberately does not complete checkout - but it omits whether the staged cart replaces a prior one, what happens if it is never confirmed, and what state it leaves behind.

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 tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the scope boundary second. Every sentence earns its place, though the jargon-heavy first sentence could be slightly clearer.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description should explain the two-phase prepare/confirm flow and give at least minimal parameter meaning. It covers the operation's intent and the checkout boundary but leaves the confirmation lifecycle and both parameters undocumented.

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 0% and neither parameter is named. 'Resolving a ReceiptCal recipe' loosely implies recipe_id, but the servings parameter (with its 0.25-24 range) is entirely unaddressed, so the description does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: staging the resolution of a ReceiptCal recipe into a retailer cart URL and saving the commerce session. It is clear what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from close siblings like create_cart_url, prepare_create_ingredient_cart, or prepare_create_grocery_list, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the text alone.

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?

'Stage' hints that this is a preparatory step and 'Checkout remains with the user' sets a scope boundary, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of the confirm_action/cancel_action follow-up that a 'prepare_' tool presumably requires, and no comparison to the alternative cart tools.

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