Place an order previously staged by prepare_order. Requires the confirmationToken returned by prepare_order. This causes a real order to be sent to the vendor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirmationToken | Yes | The confirmationToken returned by prepare_order. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses the key side effect: 'This causes a real order to be sent to the vendor,' signaling that this is a consequential, irreversible action. It does not cover auth or failure behavior, but the most important operational trait is stated.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the required parameter, and the real-world consequence. Information is front-loaded and there is no redundant wording.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what is required, and the consequential side effect. It could mention what happens on invalid tokens or whether the operation is idempotent, but these are not necessary for correct invocation.
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% and the parameter's schema description already states it is the confirmationToken returned by prepare_order. The tool description reinforces this but does not add significant new semantic detail beyond the structured 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?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Place an order') and distinguishes it from preparation via 'previously staged by prepare_order.' It is not a tautology and clearly separates concern from sibling tools such as prepare_order or check_order.
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 the prerequisite: the order must already be staged by prepare_order and requires the confirmationToken returned by that tool. It gives a clear usage context, though it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource: order status vs. order staging vs. order placement, vendor discovery vs. menu retrieval, and login initiation vs. code submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity; even sequential tools like prepare_order and place_order are clearly separated by their purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores (e.g., check_order, list_vendors, prepare_order). Even the login and logout tools fit the pattern as single verbs, and there is no mixing of conventions.
With 10 tools, the surface is well-scoped for a restaurant ordering domain. It covers discovery, menu browsing, account management, login flow, order staging, placement, and status checking without feeling bloated or too thin.
The core ordering lifecycle is covered end-to-end (vendor -> menu -> login -> prepare -> place -> check). The only noticeable gaps are the absence of an explicit address-saving tool (though referenced in the login description) and no order cancellation or update capability, though these may be out of scope for typical ordering workflows.
