Confirmer le retrait d’une ligne du panier

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the destructive nature. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it rejects modified carts (optimistic concurrency), verifies the real cart afterward, and requires a confirmationToken. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on rejection (error behavior, partial execution) or authentication requirements. The description is consistent with the destructiveHint annotation, adding meaningful behavioral context without contradicting structured data.

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?

One dense sentence covering the full lifecycle: consume, reject-if-changed, remove, verify. No wasted words. While complete, the French structure packs many subordinate clauses; a reader might benefit from slightly clearer segmentation, but this is efficient for the information conveyed.

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 mutation tool with destructiveHint=true, no output schema, and 0% param schema coverage, the description carries a heavy burden. It does explain the transactional behavior (reject if modified) and post-action verification, which is good. However, it lacks error/return information, what happens on confirmation token expiry, and whether the tool can fail silently. Given the tool's moderate complexity (1 param, clear state-machine behavior), the missing return-value documentation is a notable gap.

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 description mentions the confirmationToken concept ('Consomme une confirmation') and 'refuse tout panier modifié' relates to its validation behavior. However, with 0% schema description coverage and an opaque 43-character token pattern, the description doesn't explain where the token comes from (presumably from preview_remove_from_cart). It adds partial meaning but leaves the token's origin and format details unexplained.

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 (confirm/consume) and resource (retrait d'une ligne du panier). It explains the multi-step behavior: consumes a confirmation, rejects modified carts, removes the line, verifies the real cart. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the 'confirmation' aspect sets it apart from preview_remove_from_cart, though this differentiation is only implicit.

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_remove_from_cart (sibling tool), indicating a two-phase pattern. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or describe the required prerequisites like obtaining a confirmation token first. The 'refuse tout panier modifié entre-temps' gives context on a behavioral constraint but not explicit usage direction.

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