Albert Heijn: Clear Order

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the operation is irreversible and guarded by a confirm="yes" requirement to prevent accidental wholesale clearing. It does not say what the order looks like after clearing, but that gap is minor.

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 tightly packed clauses, front-loaded with the destructive verb and scope, then the safety guard. No filler; every phrase carries routing or safety information.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and annotations covering the safety hints, the description supplies the remaining essentials: exact scope, irreversibility, and the confirmation guard.

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 100% and only one parameter exists, so the schema already documents 'confirm' fully. The description repeats the confirm="yes" requirement and adds intent ('to prevent accidental use'), which adds light value but does not exceed the structured baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and scope: 'Remove ALL items from the active Albert Heijn delivery order (not the shopping list).' The explicit negative scope cleanly separates it from the sibling ah_clear_shopping_list, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 clarifies the target (active delivery order, not shopping list), which is the key routing decision among siblings. It stops short of naming ah_clear_shopping_list or ah_remove_from_cart as alternatives for the case where only some items should go, so the exclusion is implicit 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.