Update Kitchen Ticket

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds workflow progression context (queued→preparing...), which helps the agent understand that status updates follow a logical order. No contradictions with annotations; the description complements them.

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 in English and Spanish, tightly packed with essential information. It uses clear formatting (en-dash, bullet-like examples) without any fluff. Every sentence serves a purpose: defining the action and listing parameters.

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 has an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, main actions, and examples. However, it could mention that both status and stationId can be provided simultaneously (schema allows it) or clarify idempotency behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward update 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explicitly linking 'status' to the workflow (e.g., queued→preparing) and 'stationId' to reassignment, beyond the schema's brief descriptions. The bilingual translations also aid understanding.

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 advances a kitchen ticket through the workflow by updating status or reassigning station, with specific examples (e.g., queued → preparing). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_kitchen_ticket (read-only) and kitchen_flow_summary (overview). The verb 'advance' and resource 'kitchen ticket' are precise.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool: to update status or reassign a kitchen ticket. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention prerequisites (e.g., ticket must exist). The bilingual text adds clarity but lacks direct guidance on alternatives among sibling tools.

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