create_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'create order' statement by revealing that item_name must exactly match the menu, that colloquial terms are not automatically resolved, and that drink and topping components must be separated. It could mention side effects or error behavior, but the key operational caveats are clearly surfaced.

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 first clause states the purpose, and the second sentence delivers the most important usage warning. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a create operation with 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the critical domain-specific pitfall (colloquial abbreviations), the prerequisite get_menu call, and the expected field separation. It does not describe validation behavior or return values, but those are not essential for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in the given context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by giving a concrete example: '波霸奶綠' should be split into item_name='茉香奶綠' with toppings=['波霸']. This clarifies the relationship between item_name and toppings beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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: it establishes a Wucha beverage order. It also clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on order creation, while pickup_order, cancel_order, get_menu, and get_orders cover other actions. The domain-specific note about colloquial abbreviations reinforces its purpose without ambiguity.

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 clear workflow guidance: when customers use spoken abbreviations, call get_menu first to confirm the exact item name, then fill in drink and toppings separately. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it directly with pickup/cancel, but the context is strong enough for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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