Prévisualiser un ajout au panier

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false (a mutation may occur), but the description explicitly states 'Ne modifie pas le panier', which adds useful nuance clarifying the tool creates a confirmation artifact without altering the cart. It also discloses the single-use and two-minute validity behaviors, adding real context beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the read action then the creation behavior, followed by a clarifying non-mutation clause. Zero wasted words; 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?

For a tool with 2 params, good annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors: what it reads, what it creates (single-use confirmation, 2-minute validity), and what it does NOT do (doesn't modify the cart). The main gap is not describing the return value/response format, but with no output schema and a clear confirmation concept, the completeness is adequate.

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 carries no parameter explanation. However, reference and slug both have clear patterns in the schema (alphanumeric slug-like identifiers), and these are standard identifiers already well-documented by the pattern constraints. The description doesn't add param meaning but the schema's regex patterns carry reasonable semantic weight despite 0% coverage.

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?

Description clearly states it reads the sheet/offer/stock/cart and creates a single-use confirmation valid for two minutes. The verb (relit/crée), resource (panier context), and behavior (preview confirmation) are specific. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling preview_remove_from_cart or confirm_add_to_cart, but the 'ajout au panier' vs sibling names make the distinction reasonably clear from context.

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 a preview (non-mutating) flow before add-to-cart, and the 'Ne modifie pas le panier' clause clarifies it's a safe pre-step. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs confirm_add_to_cart or preview_remove_from_cart, nor the alternative flows. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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