blinkit_quick_reorder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that with no keys, it adds all auto-eligible staples 'silently', which gives a behavioral trait (silent addition). It also mentions the return value (repriced cart and choices). However, it does not clarify whether the cart is cleared before adding, or if it appends to existing items, leaving some ambiguity about cart 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 two sentences, each sentence providing essential information: first sentence states the action and modes, second sentence states the return. No fluff, front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers both modes (with/without keys) and the return value (repriced cart and choices). It lacks mention of error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., having saved staples), but overall is sufficiently complete given the low complexity.

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% with one parameter 'keys' described as 'staple keys to reorder; omit for all auto staples'. The description adds that resolving the keys is done for given keys, which matches the schema. With high schema coverage, the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond confirming behavior.

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 rebuilds a basket from saved staples, using specific verb 'rebuild' and resource 'basket from saved staples'. It distinguishes from siblings like blinkit_add_to_cart (individual items) and blinkit_list_staples (listing) by specifying it works with saved staples. The behavior with and without keys is explicitly described.

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 explains when to use keys (to resolve specific staples) and when to omit (for all auto-eligible staples). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool vs alternatives like blinkit_add_to_cart, though it is implied by the concept of 'saved staples'.

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