update_drink_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that only the provided fields are updated (partial update behavior) and that doc_id is required. However, it does not mention what happens if the order is not found, whether changes are reversible, or what the response looks like, which are significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 main purpose, and uses a clear bullet list to highlight doc_id and the partial-update guideline. Every sentence provides value, and there is no wasted text.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation in the schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error cases, or how this tool differs from update_order_by_name beyond the use of ID. Relying on 'same as the ordering tool' for most parameters weakens independence. Overall, the tool is not fully self-contained for an agent.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (schema coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It explains doc_id ('unique order ID obtained from the list') but refers to all other parameters as 'same as the ordering tool' without specifying their meanings. For a tool with five parameters, this leaves the semantics of name, spec, topping, and drink_name largely unexplained and dependent on another tool's documentation.

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 'Modify an existing order' with a specific verb and resource. It also provides a usage condition ('when the user provides an order ID and requests changes') and distinguishes itself from siblings by requiring doc_id, though it does not explicitly name the alternative update_order_by_name.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use when user provides order ID and requests changes.' It also gives guidance on partial updates ('only input the parts that need to be modified'), which clarifies usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., when only name is known), so it lacks an explicit exclusion.

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