update_order_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the behavioral trait of updating the machine step, enumerates allowed statuses, and explicitly warns about validation errors for invalid status-drink combinations.

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 sentences: first states purpose, second lists valid steps, third gives exclusions and error conditions. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or filler.

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 update tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers inputs and constraints. A minor gap: it doesn't describe the return value (e.g., success indicator or updated order), but this is not critical 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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds full context: it lists the exact allowed values for 'status' (grinding, brewing, steaming, dispensing) and explains the constraint linking 'steaming' to milk drinks. It clarifies that 'order_id' is an identifier without format details, which is acceptable.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'current machine step for an in-progress order'. It lists valid statuses ('grinding', 'brewing', 'steaming', 'dispensing') and distinguishes from siblings like 'mark_order_ready' and 'place_order' by explicitly saying not to use for 'pending' or 'ready'.

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?

Provides explicit when (as you BEGIN each step) and when-not (for 'pending' or 'ready'). Names alternative tools (place_order, mark_order_ready) and flags a specific validation error ('steaming' on non-milk drinks).

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