rami_levy_clear_cart

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide (no annotations exist). It explains the dual local/server effect, the meaning of ok:false with a transport reason ('nothing changed'), and the items_rejected case where the server refused products and they are removed locally. This is rich, actionable 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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action and scope, the return values and their meaning, and the failure modes with guidance. No filler, no repetition of the name or schema.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the action, the return values, the failure modes, and the recommended follow-up action. An agent can invoke this tool correctly and interpret its result without additional information.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it does explain the return values (cartTotal, serverTotal, ok, reason), which is the closest analog. Since there are no parameters, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know to invoke it.

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 verb ('Empty'), a specific resource ('the cart'), and the scope ('completely, both locally and on the real Rami Levy account'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like rami_levy_remove_item (which removes a single item) and rami_levy_view_cart (which views).

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when the user wants to clear the entire cart. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list makes the distinction obvious. It also provides guidance on how to interpret the result and what to do in the items_rejected case ('tell the user and pick alternatives').

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