reorder

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

Discloses non-obvious behavior beyond annotations: partial failures are reported as skipped/needs_choice rather than erroring, and 'nothing is ordered' clarifies the write scope against the readOnlyHint=false annotation. Output schema exists, so the reported result categories are reinforced rather than uniquely required here.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: primary action first, then edge-case handling, then the terminal caveat ('Nothing is ordered'). Every clause carries routing or failure-mode information; only the nested parenthetical is slightly heavy.

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 one-param cart mutation with an output schema, the description covers the full agent workflow (source of input, partial-match handling, next tool to call) and states the operation is not order placement. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the single param is undocumented in the schema, but the description compensates by naming its source (order_id from get_order_history). This is the key semantic an agent needs and it is supplied.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (add past order's items to cart) plus the matching mechanism (matched by name against the current menu). Clearly distinct from add_to_cart and get_order_history, and it names the latter as its input source.

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?

Explicitly routes: get order_id from get_order_history, handle needs_choice by asking the user and calling add_to_cart with matched ids plus pick, then continue with review_order. Both the trigger and the follow-up alternatives are given.

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