Добавить товар магазина в корзину

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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight. It discloses the internal process: 'Сам открывает магазин с поиском товара, находит карточку по названию и жмёт «+»' – revealing that the tool performs UI automation. It also warns that name accuracy matters, adding context about potential failure if the name is too vague. However, it does not mention prerequisites like authentication or error handling, which would enhance transparency further.

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 three sentences long, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: function, usage distinction, and process/input guidance. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no extraneous 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers the tool's purpose, differentiates from a sibling, explains the internal workflow, and advises on input sourcing. The main gaps are missing prerequisites (e.g., login state) and explicit behavior for invalid inputs, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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 schema covers shop and product with descriptions, but the tool's description adds valuable guidance for the product parameter: 'Название бери из результатов search_products (чем точнее, тем лучше)' – clarifying the source and quality of the input. Quantity has no description in schema, but its default/min/max are self-explanatory; the tool description doesn't add to it. Overall, it improves understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool's function: 'Добавляет ТОВАР МАГАЗИНА (retail) в корзину' (adds store product to cart), explicitly distinguishing it from the sibling add_to_cart, which is for restaurants. The verb and resource are specific, and the scope is unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'для магазинов используй это, а НЕ add_to_cart (та только для ресторанов)' directly instructs when to use this tool over the alternative, and it advises to source product names from search_products results for best accuracy.

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