Add Chosen Groceries

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

Annotations already mark non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: the shortlist is one-use and prevents duplicate retries, the operation stops on first failure, and no order is placed. It does not detail output/error behavior, but the output schema covers that gap.

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 dense sentences deliver purpose, consumption behavior, retry guidance, promotion workflow, and a clear boundary ('No order is placed') without filler. Every sentence earns its place and the most important action is front-loaded.

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 3-param mutation tool with an output schema and useful annotations, the description covers preconditions, failure handling, and a significant non-effect. The main missing piece is explicit confirmation semantics for the confirm parameter, but the schema and the retry guidance make the tool callable with reasonable inference.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning for shortlist_id ('one-use shortlist') and quantity ('explicit quantities,' chosen after considering promotions), but it does not explain the confirm=true requirement or the group_id/url selection identifiers. The schema provides the mechanical shape, so the description provides partial but incomplete semantic coverage.

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 clear verb ('Add'), an object ('user-approved choices'), and a key constraint ('explicit quantities'), and the tool name/title make the cart destination clear. It does not literally say 'to cart,' so sibling differentiation from add_to_cart is present but implicit.

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 gives actionable workflow guidance: inspect get_product and discuss multi-buy promotions before choosing quantities, read get_cart before retrying after failure, and no order is placed. It does not explicitly contrast with add_to_cart or state when this tool should be avoided, so it stops short of a full 5.

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