Set ordering methods

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

Annotations already cover read-only, destructive, idempotent, and open-world traits. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that setting at least one method is prerequisite to accepting orders, store hours must be configured beforehand, and authentication is required. This helps the agent understand operational dependencies and consequences.

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 purpose and available options appear first, followed by the most important operational constraints. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant wording or unnecessary background.

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?

Combined with the fully documented input schema and rich annotations, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool safely: prerequisites, required auth, and the operational effect are clear. The dry-run/apply flow and token requirements are left to the schema, which is acceptable, though a brief prose mention of the dry-run default could have helped agents avoid accidental applies.

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?

The input schema already describes all five parameters with detailed descriptions, including the dry-run/apply mechanism, locationId fallback, planDigest requirement, confirmationToken, and fulfillmentMethods behavior. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond listing the same enum values already present in the schema.

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 that the tool lets you choose how customers order and enumerates the possible methods: takeout, table_side, delivery, room_service. It is easy to infer that this configures fulfillment methods, and the purpose is not misleading. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from narrower sibling tools like set_takeout_enabled or set_scheduled_orders_enabled.

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 provides useful context: at least one fulfillment method is required to accept orders, store hours must be set first, and a craveup login is required. It does not, however, explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_takeout_enabled, nor does it state any exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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