blinkit_prepare_order

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the creation of an order and payment hash, return values (PAS token, orderId, payable amount), and a failure condition (pending payment). However, it omits details about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or rate limits, which are relevant for a payment-related mutation.

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 concise at two sentences, with the core function front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second details outputs and a failure condition. No redundant 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and a key failure scenario. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could theoretically mention post-usage steps (e.g., using the PAS token).

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 100% for the single parameter 'cart_id', so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds context that the cart_id is 'from the web cart / checkout', which reinforces the schema but does not significantly augment semantic meaning.

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 tool's purpose: 'Mint a payment session for a server-synced cart'. It uses a specific verb ('mint') and resource ('payment session'), and differentiates from siblings by focusing on payment preparation, whereas other tools handle cart manipulation, search, or authentication.

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 provides context by specifying 'for a server-synced cart' and noting that it fails if a pending payment exists. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like blinkit_checkout or blinkit_pay_upi, nor does it offer exclusions or comparative guidance.

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