Add To Basket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important non-obvious behavior: adding a duplicate article increments quantity rather than erroring. That is genuinely valuable. It still omits permission/auth needs, what happens when no market is supplied (schema shows market is nullable/default null), and what the call returns.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core action and its target lead, with the delivery and duplicate-quantity details following. Slightly fragmented formatting (the delivery line dangles without a lead-in) but efficient overall.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the quantity accumulation note covers the main side effect. But for a mutation tool with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage, the missing market-parameter semantics and any auth/prerequisite context leave a real gap.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain the 'delivery' enum values and the sku's origin, but says nothing about the 'market' parameter (nullable, default null) and only implies quantity's accumulation behavior. Two of four parameters remain effectively undocumented.

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 concrete verb+resource (add an article to the basket of a market) and even names the upstream tool that supplies the sku, so the agent knows the precondition. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like set_quantity or remove_from_basket, but the write-direction is unambiguous from the verb.

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 delivery sentence implies when each mode applies ('pickup' reserve-and-collect vs 'delivery' parcel), which is useful selection guidance. However there is no explicit routing against siblings such as set_quantity (for changing an existing line) or view_basket, and no stated prerequisites beyond the sku source.

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