Set Quantity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little. It does not say whether a mutation is reversible, what happens when quantity is 0 (does it remove the line?), what permissions are required, or whether the change is idempotent. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and target are stated first. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 no explanation, but the tool is a mutation with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and only a hint about line_id sourcing. For a basket-mutating operation the description leaves too much of the calling contract unstated.

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. It adds meaning for line_id (sourced from view_basket) but says nothing about the semantics of quantity (bounds, zero behavior) and never mentions the 'market' parameter at all. One of three parameters is entirely 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('quantity of a basket line'), which cleanly separates it from add_to_basket and remove_from_basket. It does not explicitly name a sibling or state scope boundaries, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 parenthetical '(line_id from view_basket)' implies the agent should call view_basket first to obtain a line_id, which is useful workflow context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance (e.g., that this only adjusts an existing line rather than adding one).

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