Remove From Cart

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

Adds real value beyond the annotations: the user-approval requirement, the over-limit allowance, the idempotency detail ('reusing plan_id never resends the write'), and a clear scope boundary ('does not cancel an order or make a payment'). These go beyond destructiveHint/idempotentHint, though the mutation's reversibility and error behavior remain unstated.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then prerequisites, idempotency, and scope. No filler; each sentence carries distinct 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the mutation's prerequisites, permission edge case, idempotency, and scope exclusions. An agent has enough to invoke it 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 coverage is 0% for the single plan_id parameter, so the description carries the load. It does add meaning ('reusing plan_id never resends the write') and ties the id to an approved plan, but it never explains what a plan_id is or how to obtain one, leaving a real gap.

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 resource ('DELETE the exact cart item in an approved remove plan') and clarifies scope ('only removes from the shopping cart'), which implicitly separates it from remove_from_account_cart. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Gives the prerequisite context (an approved remove plan, requires user approval) and a non-obvious permission ('removal is allowed even above the limits'). It does not name prepare_cart_change as the tool that produces the plan, so the workflow routing is inferred 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.