Update Kitchen Ticket

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, so the agent knows it's a safe, non-destructive update. The description adds the typical status progression (queued → preparing → ready → served) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether skipping statuses is allowed. With annotations covering the base, a 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise with two bilingual sentences. It front-loads the English version, includes examples, and has no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. For a simple update tool with three parameters (one required), the description covers the core actions. It could mention that the status enum includes on_hold and voided, but the email schema already does. Overall adequate for the complexity level.

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 schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds context about reassigning station and typical status progression, but does not provide significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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, updating status or reassigning station. It uses specific verbs ('advance', 'update', 'reassign') and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_kitchen_ticket (read-only) and list_kitchen_tickets (list). The bilingual text reinforces clarity.

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 what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., create_kitchen_ticket for new tickets, kitchen_flow_summary for overview). It implies usage for advancing tickets but lacks when-not-to-use guidance.

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