cart_remove

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'Returns the cart,' which is redundant given an output schema exists, and says nothing about what happens when the product is absent or whether the removal is reversible.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and with no wasted words. Everything earns its place except perhaps the redundant return note.

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 mutation tool with an output schema present, the return value need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description omits error behavior (e.g., product not in cart) and parameter meaning, leaving gaps an agent would want filled.

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 carry the parameter. It implies that the single argument identifies the product to remove, but never states that it is an ASIN or gives any format constraint, leaving the parameter only weakly clarified.

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 and resource ('Remove a product from the cart'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling cart_add. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it doesn't reach the top of the scale, but the intent 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as cart_add or cart. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'remove'.

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