Place a Zé order (gated)

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is fail-closed, requires a specific environment flag, requires explicit user intent, and forbids guest-token charging. These safety-critical details are exactly what an agent needs before invoking a mutation tool that the annotations already mark as destructive and non-idempotent. No contradiction with 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?

The description is four short, dense sentences with no filler. Safety-critical gating is front-loaded ('Fail-closed') and every sentence contributes operational or security context. This is an example of high-signal conciseness.

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 gating and authentication constraints are thoroughly covered, which is essential for this destructive mutation. However, the tool's core payload ('input') is completely unspecified, and with no output schema, the agent does not know what a successful order placement returns or how to structure the request. The safety context is strong, but operational completeness is lacking.

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 (33%) and the description does not compensate. The only documented parameter, explicit_user_intent, is repeated in the description without adding new meaning. The 'input' object has no description at all, and the agent receives no guidance about what keys or values to provide when placing an order.

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 title and tool name make the action clear: placing a Zé order. However, the description itself does not restate the purpose—it jumps straight into gating conditions ('Fail-closed. Needs ZE_ALLOW_MUTATIONS and explicit_user_intent'), assuming the agent already knows what the tool does from the name. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling order tools like ze_cancel_order.

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 concrete invocation prerequisites: ZE_ALLOW_MUTATIONS must be set, explicit_user_intent must be true, guest tokens are not allowed to charge, and default examples never enable the tool. This is strong context for when it is safe to call, though it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it other than via the gating conditions.

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