Добавить в корзину

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

No annotations are provided, but the description compensates fully by disclosing lazy menu loading/auto-scrolling, blocking of add button without required options, and inability to edit options after adding. This goes well beyond the schema and gives important behavioral context.

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 fairly long but every sentence carries essential operational information. It is front-loaded with the core action and then covers alternatives and edge cases without redundant filler.

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 no output schema and complex interactive behavior, the description fully covers prerequisites, sequencing, lazy loading, option constraints, and the workaround for editing options. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 descriptions cover item and options, and the description adds key semantics: item must match get_menu and options must exactly match get_item_options values. Quantity is not described in either schema or description beyond numeric constraints, so a small gap remains.

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 adds a restaurant dish to the cart by name, explicitly contrasting with add_product for shop items. It differentiates from sibling tools and specifies the resource (restaurant dish) and action.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: first call get_menu, use add_product for shop goods, call get_item_options before adding if hasOptions, and remove/re-add to change options. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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