uber_eats_reorder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait — that cart mutations still happen in the browser, not through this tool — which is genuinely useful caveat. However, it doesn't describe the return format or error behavior (e.g., what happens if order not found), and with an output schema present, some of that is covered elsewhere.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a workflow caveat and a concise Args section. Every sentence earns its place. Minor deduction: the Args section slightly restates the schema's parameter but adds the provenance hint, so it's justified.

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?

An output schema exists, which covers return values, so the description doesn't need to. For a single-parameter, read-only reorder helper with clear provenance for its input, the description covers purpose, workflow role, and the browser-dependency caveat. It's reasonably complete for this tool's low complexity.

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?

There is only 1 parameter and schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that order_uuid comes from uber_eats_track_orders, giving provenance and type context beyond the bare string schema. That's good value-add for a single-param tool, though schema itself is trivial to document.

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: 'Look up a past order by UUID and return store UUID + previous line items so the user can open the menu and add items again.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like track_orders (tracking) and add_to_cart (mutations). It explains both the lookup and the reorder flow purpose.

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 context: this is a read-only lookup to support reorder, and it explicitly notes that 'Cart mutations still use the browser until add-to-cart API is captured' — explaining the workflow context and constraints. It implicitly differentiates from add_to_cart by positioning this as a prerequisite step. No explicit when-not-to-use but context is strong.

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