Confirmer un ajout au panier

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses significant behavioral traits: the tool refuses a modified cart, adds exactly one unit, and verifies the actual cart after. With readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true already signaling mutation and side effects, the description adds meaningful detail about concurrency guards (refusing modified carts) and quantity semantics (exactly one unit).

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 compact French sentence that conveys purpose, usage constraints, quantity semantics, and a verification step. Every clause earns its place with zero filler.

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 single-parameter confirmation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior efficiently. It could add details on error outcomes (e.g., what happens when a cart is modified or token is invalid), but given the tool's simple structure and the openWorldHint annotation, the coverage is reasonably complete.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: the confirmationToken is implicitly a token obtained from a prior preview step, tying it to the add-to-cart confirmation workflow. However, it doesn't specify the token's format beyond the schema pattern, or what happens with an invalid/expired token, though with only one parameter the description carries reasonable weight.

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 states a specific verb (consume/confirm) plus resource (addition to cart), and details what it does: consumes a confirmation, refuses modified carts, adds exactly one unit, then verifies the actual cart. This distinguishes it from siblings like confirm_remove_from_cart and preview_add_to_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 this is the confirmation step following preview_add_to_cart, and its refusal behavior hints at when it should be used. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative (preview_add_to_cart) or state when NOT to use it, leaving the workflow linkage implied rather than explicit.

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