uber_eats_build_taste_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description clarifies this is a state-changing/build action (build/update profile) and mentions it depends on past order history ('Analyze past order history'), implying it reads order data and writes profile state. With zero annotations, this is reasonably transparent, though it doesn't describe idempotency, cost/time, or whether it requires login.

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?

Three concise sentences that front-load the main purpose, then detail outputs, then usage timing. No wasted words, no redundancy with the schema, and each 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?

The tool has an output schema (which documents return values), zero parameters, and no annotations. The description covers purpose, outputs, and when to call. It could marginally benefit from stating prerequisites (e.g., requires order history) and clarifying the distinction from uber_eats_recommend, but given the tool's simplicity and output schema presence, it's largely complete.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there's nothing to add about parameter meaning. The description's focus on behavior (analysis, building/updating) substitutes adequately for parameter documentation. A baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate here.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Analyze past order history and build/update the user's taste profile.' It clearly names what it produces (cuisine preferences, favorite restaurants, ordering patterns) and distinctly differs from siblings like uber_eats_recommend (which suggests items) and uber_eats_get_preferences (which reads stored preferences). Slightly lacking because it doesn't name a sibling for explicit contrast.

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 usage context: 'Call this periodically or when the user wants updated recommendations.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like uber_eats_recommend for getting recommendations vs building the profile, so no explicit exclusions are provided.

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