place_drink_order

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: drink_name is auto-matched to the closest item, spec must include sugar/ice and missing info should be proactively asked, and topping defaults to '無'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it does not describe the return value or side effects.

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 concise, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and uses a clear bullet-like structure for parameter explanations. Every sentence contributes value, with no wasted words.

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 description covers when to use, parameter semantics, and behavioral matching details. It omits return value or confirmation behavior, but for a simple create-order tool, the outcome is intuitive. Given no output schema exists, a brief note on the response would improve completeness, but it is already adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully explains each parameter: name must be obtained, drink_name auto-matches, spec requires sweetness and ice, and topping defaults. This completely compensates for the schema's lack of semantic information.

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 it executes a drink ordering tool and specifies when to call it ('當使用者表達想喝飲料或點餐時'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that update, delete, or list orders, making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 says to use the tool when the user expresses wanting a drink or to order, providing clear context. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools (update, delete, list) make the boundaries implicit, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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