fulfil_orderMarks an order sent and emails the customer, with an optional note (two steps).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | ||
| item_id | Yes | ||
| message | No | A note for the customer, e.g. tracking | |
| plugin_id | Yes | ||
| confirm_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_message | No | ||
| confirm_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / agent_messageAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / item_id / descriptionRemoved value: -"From get_lists"Input schema / properties / plugin_id / descriptionRemoved value: -"From list_plugins"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "confirm_token": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write operation. The description adds useful context by naming the external side effect (emails the customer) and the optional note, though it does not explain irreversibility or the meaning of the two-step/confirm_token flow.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical '(two steps)' is slightly cryptic without follow-up, but the overall brevity is appropriate.
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 presence of an output schema and rich annotations reduces what the description must cover. However, for a destructive five-parameter mutation with 20% schema coverage, the description leaves important gaps around confirm_token and the required identifiers.
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 only 20%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions only the optional note, which the schema already describes, and leaves site, plugin_id, item_id, and especially confirm_token unexplained.
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 and resource: it marks an order sent and emails the customer. That is clearly distinguishable from sibling operations like refund_order and refuse_order, though it does not explicitly route the agent away from those alternatives.
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?
It implies the tool is for fulfilling an order, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus refund_order, refuse_order, or other order-related siblings. There are no stated preconditions, exclusions, or alternative-selection rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.