remove_from_cartRemoves a specific item from the shopping cart using its cart item ID, then updates the order total with the remaining items.
Remove an item from the cart by its cart item ID (e.g. 'cart-1'). Re-calculates totals with remaining items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cart_item_id | Yes | The cart item ID to remove (e.g. 'cart-1', from get_cart results) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the side effect of recalculating totals, which is a useful behavioral trait, but it does not disclose whether removal is destructive to the cart item permanently, whether there are any constraints (e.g., cannot remove after order placed), or whether the operation requires specific cart state. This is a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, so more detail is needed.
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 sentences with no waste; the core action and the side effect are front-loaded. A perfect score would require additional detail, but for the scope it is efficient and well-structured.
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?
Given it is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential usage. The only gap is the lack of behavioral context (e.g., error conditions or irreversible nature), but it is not severely incomplete for a straightforward removal operation.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description reinforces the parameter's purpose by providing an example ('cart-1'). This adds value beyond the schema by giving a concrete, recognizable format, though it is a single parameter and the schema already explains it well.
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 specific verb and resource ('Remove an item from the cart') and clarifies the identifier used ('cart item ID'). It is clearly distinguished from siblings like add_to_cart and get_cart, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.
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?
Clear context for when to use: when you need to remove a specific cart item. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, but in this toolset the purpose is self-evident and sibling names clarify scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.