Add to cart

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds two non-obvious behaviors: quantities are additive rather than overwritten, and combos auto-select their minimum/default spec when selections is omitted. It does not say what happens on failure (invalid linkId, out-of-stock, max quantity) or what the response contains.

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 core action, with no filler. The bilingual phrasing is a bit dense but each clause carries information.

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 write tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers the combo-selection edge case but omits error/validation behavior and any notion of the result. With no output schema, the agent gets no hint of what a successful add returns (cart state, line item, etc.).

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 reported at 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does explain the selections parameter's fallback rule (auto-select minimum portions when omitted) — meaningful beyond the schema. However, the items array shape and the quantity accumulation semantics are only hinted at, and the quantity default/max are left entirely to the schema.

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 ("Add dishes to the cart") and names the combo-meal (套餐) case, which distinguishes it from cart_view/cart_remove/cart_clear. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, cart_set_quantity, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

"数量累加" (quantities accumulate) implicitly signals when to use this over cart_set_quantity, which overwrites, but the agent must infer that contrast rather than being told. No explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance is given.

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