Prévisualiser le retrait d’une ligne du panier

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

The description adds useful behavioral context: it creates a 'confirmation à usage unique' (single-use confirmation) and explicitly states 'Ne modifie pas le panier' (does not modify the cart), clarifying the non-destructive nature. However, the annotations already set destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the single-use confirmation detail which is genuinely valuable, but doesn't explain what happens to the confirmation if unused or its relationship to confirm_remove_from_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?

Two sentences, highly efficient. The first sentence covers purpose and behavior, the second clarifies non-destructive nature. No wasted words. Could arguably add a third sentence on when to use, but as written it's tight and well-structured.

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 preview tool with no output schema, the description explains the core function well. It's relatively simple functionally (preview create confirmation). However, it could better explain the confirmation lifecycle (does it expire? what does calling preview_remove_from_cart then confirm_remove_from_cart look like?) and would benefit from explaining what 're-lire le panier' behavior implies visually for the agent. The missing output schema means the agent doesn't know what this returns, and the description doesn't compensate.

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 single parameter 'reference' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'la ligne ciblée' (the targeted line) which maps to reference, implying reference identifies a cart line. However, it doesn't clarify whether reference is a product ID, line ID, or what format beyond the schema's alphanumeric pattern. This is an implication rather than explicit explanation.

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 action: 'Relit le panier et crée une confirmation à usage unique pour retirer toute la ligne ciblée' (re-reads the cart and creates a single-use confirmation to remove the targeted line). It has a clear verb+resource (relit/preview remove) and explicitly notes it does not modify the cart, distinguishing it from confirm_remove_from_cart sibling.

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?

While the description implies this is a preview that should be followed by confirm_remove_from_cart (given the mention of a single-use confirmation and the sibling confirm_remove_from_cart tool), it does not explicitly say 'use this before confirm_remove_from_cart' or explain the relationship with the confirm tool. No exclusion criteria or alternatives named.

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