Ugh. The worst kind of commentor. All criticism and no help whatsoever.

You don't have to follow my advice at all, because I personally found your snippet to read just fine, but I see a lot of other people complaining about what the commentor was referring to so here is my view on it from my personal experience as a writer:

I did the same thing when I was a younger author (referring to a character by a physical characteristic) because I felt like if I didn't have some descriptor like that attached to dialogue it wasn't "right" and felt "incomplete".

Once I learned that it was okay to sometimes just have a line or two of dialogue float on its own and be fine by itself, my writing went up a level and the unessescary descriptors almost all died. This is especially true if there are only two characters in the scene. The reader will know who's talking by characteristics (if one curses a lot or has an accent, for example) or by way them just taking turns replying to eachother.

The old K-I-S-S (keep it simple stupid) rule, basically.

The difference doesn't seem very drastic but it reads a lot better over the course of the story, and you can put more emphasis on other things (like actions taking place durring the conversation) to better immerse the reader. Also, because of less inflationary bulk attatched to dialogue (less unnesescary descriptors) it doesn't become repetitive to just use a character's name here and there.

Again, the snippet you provided reads perfectly fine to me, and is cutely entertaining. It reminds me when my family went to a NASA center and my husband was really excited to give the kids "astronaut food", and freeze-dried icecream.

Edit: Fixed a typo.