add_item_to_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions a prerequisite but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Add'), error handling, permissions needed, or what happens if the order doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 two short sentences with zero waste, front-loading the main action. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or outcomes, but it's efficient and to the point.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose and a prerequisite but lacks details on behavior, error cases, or return values. For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, this is adequate but with clear gaps, making it just viable.

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 schema already documents all parameters well. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on 'item_code' or 'options'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Add a menu item') and target ('to the current order'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_pizza_with_toppings' which might serve a similar purpose but for specific items.

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 includes a prerequisite ('Must create an order first'), which gives some context for when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_pizza_with_toppings' or 'search_menu', nor does it provide exclusions or detailed scenarios.

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