clear_cart

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

Given no annotations, the description fully discloses the destructive nature (requires confirmation) and the return format (\`{"removed_items": <int>}\`). This adds behavioral context beyond the schema. It could be improved by specifying that the entire cart is cleared, not partial, but the current detail is sufficient.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences and a return type snippet. Every part adds value (purpose, destructive warning, return format). No filler or redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter and a clear return, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, destructive behavior, and return format. The only gap is the lack of parameter explanation, but the output schema is present and the sibling tools (e.g., list_shops) might provide context. Overall, it adequately supports an agent in selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'shop' with an enum but no description. The tool description does not explain what 'shop' represents or list the valid values. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaningful parameter semantics. The agent must infer from the tool name and siblings like list_shops.

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 clearly states the verb ('Remove'), resource ('every item from the shop's online cart'), and scope ('for the authenticated user'). This distinguishes it from siblings like view_cart (viewing) and add_to_cart (adding). The purpose is specific and 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 description explicitly mentions the tool is destructive and advises confirming with the user before calling, which provides clear usage guidance. However, it does not specify when to use alternatives like add_to_cart (for adding items) or view_cart (for inspection), though the destructive hint strongly implies caution.

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