add_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the dependency on 'get_menu' for finding item details and the requirement to specify flavors for wings, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't address potential side effects like order total updates, error conditions, or what happens if invalid parameters are provided.

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 perfectly concise with just two sentences that both earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, while the second provides essential usage guidance. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the dependency on 'get_menu' and the flavor requirement. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what the tool returns or how it affects the order state, especially since there's no output schema to provide this information.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'get_menu' as the source for item IDs and emphasizing the flavor requirement for wings, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics that aren't already in the schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Add a menu item') and resource ('to the current order'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'remove_item' or 'create_order'. It provides a concrete verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance by directing users to 'get_menu to find item IDs, prices, and available flavors' and specifies 'For wings, always specify a flavor.' It also implies this tool is for adding items to an existing order rather than creating a new one, distinguishing it from 'create_order'.

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