Update Kitchen Ticket

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

With annotations already indicating non-destructive and idempotent behavior, the description adds value by specifying the workflow status progression (queued → preparing → ready → served) and listing the exact statuses and station reassignment, which goes beyond the annotation fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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 highly concise: two sentences in English and Spanish, front-loading the key action and purpose, with zero wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, 1 required), an output schema exists, and the description covers the essential purpose and usage. There is no missing information that would hinder 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 coverage is 100% with bilingual descriptions for each parameter. The description adds marginal value by listing the status progression examples, but the meaning is already fully conveyed by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'Advance' and the resource 'kitchen ticket', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_kitchen_ticket and list_kitchen_tickets by stating the key actions: updating status and reassigning station.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to advance a ticket through the workflow) and lists specific use cases (status change or reassignment). It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous and no alternative tool exists among siblings for the same action.

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