Place a Zé order (gated)

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: fail-closed behavior, required environment flag, explicit user intent requirement, guest charge restriction, and default-example safety. This complements the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Four short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The most important safety information, fail-closed behavior, is front-loaded, and every sentence adds distinct value.

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 destructive mutation with a free-form input parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers safety gates well, but it does not explain what goes into the input object, how confirmed_legal_age factors in, or what a successful call returns, making correct invocation underspecified.

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 only 25%, and the description does not compensate. It reinforces explicit_user_intent, but provides no guidance for the critical free-form input object, response_format, or confirmed_legal_age, leaving the agent to guess what payload structure is expected.

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 description clearly identify the action as placing a Zé order and signal it is gated. However, it does not distinguish this from the closely related sibling ze_complete_checkout, so an agent must infer which action is appropriate.

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 conditions: it requires ZE_ALLOW_MUTATIONS and explicit_user_intent, and it warns that guest tokens cannot charge and default examples never enable this. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over ze_complete_checkout, but the preconditions and exclusions provide actionable usage guidance.

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