Place iFood order

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnly=false, and idempotent=false, and the description adds meaningful risk context by stating that the tool 'charges money' and is 'FAIL-CLOSED.' It could further describe irreversibility or refund behavior, but the combination of annotations and description gives the agent a clear safety picture.

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 three short, high-signal sentences: risk posture, money-impact, and required prerequisites. It is front-loaded with 'FAIL-CLOSED' and contains 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 non-idempotent, money-charging checkout tool with a nested payload and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It covers the critical safety dimension well, but it does not explain how to build checkout_payload, what response_format affects, or what a successful checkout returns. The sibling tool flow implies this is the terminal payment step, which provides some 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 low at 25%, with only explicit_user_intent having a description. The tool description mostly repeats that requirement and does not explain cart_id, response_format, or especially checkout_payload, which is a nested object with no structure defined. An agent would struggle to construct a correct checkout request from the current description.

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 concrete action: 'Charges money on wsloja checkout,' which clearly identifies this as the order-placing/payment step. This distinguishes it from the many read-only sibling tools such as ifood_get_order and ifood_list_orders. The mention of 'wsloja' is somewhat cryptic, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives clear invocation guardrails: 'Requires IFOOD_ALLOW_MUTATIONS and explicit_user_intent,' and the opening 'FAIL-CLOSED' tells the agent to avoid calling it by default. It does not explicitly compare against related mutation siblings like ifood_set_payment_method or ifood_set_delivery_method, but the safety context is strong enough to guide when not to use it.

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