cart_add

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

Annotations are entirely absent, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects. It says only 'add product to cart' and does not state whether quantities are merged, whether the cart is replaced, whether authentication is required, or what the response contains. The mutation behavior is implied but no operational context is given.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the operation and target. Every word contributes meaning, and the parenthetical adds the two parameters compactly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only a terse action statement, an agent lacks information needed to invoke this correctly in a real flow: whether the user must be authenticated, what success or failure looks like, and whether adding is idempotent or appends. The presence of auth_login/auth_status siblings makes this omission salient. The description is not 'complete' for a state-changing tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the input schema's bare titles. It does map 'code' to артикул (article number) and 'qty' to количество (quantity), adding domain meaning. However, it adds nothing about the required nature of code, the default qty of 1, or constraints, and does not explain the relationship between the two parameters.

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 ('add') and resource ('cart'), and clarifies the payload as article number plus quantity. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling cart_view, and the action is unambiguous even without opening the schema.

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 does not state when to prefer cart_add over alternatives such as cart_view, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Its usage is only implied by the verb 'add' — the agent must infer that it is for adding items rather than viewing. This meets the 'implied usage' level, with no explicit routing or when-not guidance.

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