Place order

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: annotations only say non-read-only and open-world, while the description discloses that this creates a real unpaid order, that payment must be completed by the diner in the KFC app/H5, and that confirm=true must be explicitly supplied as an intent gate. The Chinese clause reinforces that a real unpaid order is generated — exactly the side-effect context an agent needs before an irreversible-ish action.

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?

Front-loads the action and the prerequisites in a compact multi-sentence block with no filler. The trailing Chinese sentence largely restates the confirm/real-order point, which is a mild redundancy given the target audience is an agent, but it costs little.

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?

Covers the high-stakes aspects (required token, explicit confirmation, real unpaid order, payment handoff to the app) for a 6-param mutation tool. The one gap is the return shape — there is no output schema and the description never says what comes back (e.g. order id or status), which an agent needs to chain into order_status.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and every parameter mentioned in the description (confirm, previewToken, phone) is already documented in the schema with equal or greater detail. The description adds nothing about remark, packType, or expectedTotalCents beyond what the schema states, so it sits at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submit the previewed order to KFC China') and anchors scope to the preview step, which cleanly separates it from preview_order and order_status in the sibling list. An agent can identify this as the commit step of the ordering workflow without consulting the schema.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: confirm=true, the previewToken from preview_order, and the diner phone, which implies the required preview_order-first workflow. It does not explicitly say when not to call it (e.g. pending cart changes) or point at alternatives such as cart_view for adjustments, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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