mhlb_create_order

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses critical behavioral traits: the write is UNVERIFIED and its request shape was derived from compiled API client but not exercised against a live account. It also instructs to inspect the dry-run preview before confirming, which adds important safety context. The description does not contradict the 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?

Three sentences, each carrying essential information: the primary action, the workflow prerequisite, and the critical unverified warning. The structure front-loads the purpose and efficiently folds in exclusions and cautions without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (nested order object, confirm flag, write operation) and lack of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the workflow, the dry-run preview, and the unverified risk. It slightly lacks an explicit statement of what happens on success (e.g., returns a confirmation or updates the cart), but the mention of the preview and confirm flow adequately guides the agent. A minor gap prevents a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description echoes the order-model workflow ('send that model back with quantities set') but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. It also mentions the confirm parameter's role indirectly via 'dry-run preview', but schema already explains it. Thus 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 begins with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Place a lunch order into the cart.' It clearly establishes the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings like mhlb_get_order_form (fetching the form) and mhlb_checkout (payment). The wording 'adds to the cart — it does not pay' further disambiguates it from potential payment-related tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call mhlb_get_order_form first and send that model back with quantities set, establishing a clear precondition and workflow. It also states 'use mhlb_checkout for that' to direct the agent away from this tool for payment, effectively naming the alternative and the condition that selects it.

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