Pay Lunch Order Draft

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

Annotations already signal readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true, and the description adds valuable behavior: charging the wallet, optional tip donation, the rejection of already-finalized orders (supporting idempotency), and the no-card-payment limitation. The FINANCIAL warning further clarifies the risk profile.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action is stated first, followed by payment constraints, failure behavior, and the key exclusion. Every sentence carries operational weight, with no redundant or filler content.

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 a 2-parameter schema, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the essential workflow: commit a draft, charge wallet, handle insufficient funds, and avoid misuse for new orders. No critical operational detail is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that tip_cents is added on top of the item total and that the combined amount is charged to the wallet, reinforcing the schema's note that tips go to the PAC.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('commits a draft order') and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_lunch_order_draft, discard_lunch_order_draft, and cancel_my_lunch_order. It also names the source of the draft order and the financial action performed.

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?

It explicitly says this is not for new orders and directs the agent to use create_lunch_order_draft first. It also defines the payment constraint (wallet-only, no card) and gives a concrete failure-handling path: if balance is insufficient, tell the user to top up and retry.

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