Record a placed grocery order

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

Annotations already cover readOnly=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat the mutation warning. It adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the default side effect of adding items to on-hand inventory and the week status transition to 'ordered'. This goes beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences communicate the primary action and both notable side effects with zero filler. The most important effects are front-loaded, and the default behavior is flagged efficiently.

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?

The description captures the core action and main side effects but leaves several optional parameters unexplained and does not provide guidance on how this relates to assembling or placing an order. Given six parameters and zero schema descriptions, a more complete description would address the roles of store, total, week_id, and order_ref.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives semantic meaning to 'items' as purchased ingredients and to 'add_to_on_hand' as the default-controlled behavior, but store, total, week_id, and order_ref are left entirely to name inference. This is partial compensation, not full.

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 identifies a clear verb-resource pair ('Log the placed order') and adds two concrete behavioral effects: adding purchased items to ingredients on hand and moving the week to 'ordered'. This distinguishes it from related siblings like assemble_online_grocery_order, which would create or assemble an order rather than record one already placed.

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 phrase 'placed order' and 'Log the placed order' clearly situate the tool as occurring after checkout, and the default behavior for items implies use after purchase. It does not explicitly contrast with assemble_online_grocery_order or state exclusions, but the context is understandable without much inference.

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