uber_eats_place_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the fallback behavior (API first, then browser click), and critically warns this is an irreversible/committing action requiring explicit user confirmation. It does not detail what happens on success/failure or whether the order is trackable afterward, but the core behavioral traits (irreversible, requires confirmation, dual execution path) are disclosed.

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 tightly structured with a bold requirement header, a numbered checklist, and a clear exclusion sentence. Every line earns its place — no fluff, no repetition. The formatting (all-caps pointers, numbered prerequisites) makes it scannable for an agent processing it under decision pressure.

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?

This is a high-stakes, stateful, side-effect-laden tool with zero annotations and zero parameters. The description compensates comprehensively: it details prerequisites, exclusions, implementation strategy, and the confirmation contract. The presence of an output schema means return values need no explanation. Nothing meaningful is left unspecified.

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, so there's nothing to document. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description actually exceeds it by clarifying that the order context comes from prior tool calls (checkout_preview, payment method, tip, total) — making the implicit stateful contract explicit.

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 verb (place order) and resource (Uber Eats cart/checkout), plus specifics about the implementation approach (tries checkoutOrdersByDraftOrdersV1 first, then browser click). It distinguishes itself from siblings like checkout_preview (which previews) and set_checkout_tip/payment (which configure) by being the final commit action.

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 provides exhaustive usage guidelines: a numbered list of ALL preconditions that must be true before calling, and explicit exclusions ('cancel', 'no', 'wait', or uncertain). This is the strongest possible when-to-use guidance and clearly establishes this as a final, guarded action distinct from other checkout tools.

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