Open a durable post-purchase issue for a merchant-confirmed order. This notifies the supplier-side organization and records owner, status, and event history; it does not claim a resolution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| summary | Yes | ||
| order_id | Yes | ||
| issue_type | Yes | ||
| owner_type | No | supplier | |
| order_item_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey safety traits (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by disclosing additional behavioral details: it notifies the supplier-side organization, records owner/status/event history, and does not claim a resolution. These specifics go beyond the structured annotations.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds useful information. It is efficient and free of filler.
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 captures the tool's purpose and side effects, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns. However, with five parameters and no parameter-level guidance, the description is not fully complete. It is minimally sufficient but leaves the agent to infer parameter details solely from names and enums.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter explanations, but it does not. It merely references 'order' generically without mentioning order_id, issue_type, summary, owner_type, or order_item_id. The agent receives no guidance about how to populate these required fields.
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 the tool's action ('Open'), the resource ('durable post-purchase issue'), and the context ('for a merchant-confirmed order'). It also clarifies what it does NOT do ('does not claim a resolution'), distinguishing it from resolution-oriented siblings like update_supplier_order_issue.
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 implies when to use by specifying 'post-purchase' and 'merchant-confirmed', but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The mention of 'notifies the supplier-side organization' and 'does not claim a resolution' provides contextual guidance about its role compared to returns or cancellations.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource, role, or action. For example, list_orders versus list_supplier_orders clearly separates buyer and supplier views, and update_supplier_order versus update_supplier_order_issue versus update_supplier_order_return handle different concerns despite similar names. Rich descriptions eliminate ambiguity.
All tool names consistently use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_project, list_orders, update_supplier_capabilities, search_products). The style is uniform across reads, writes, lists, and searches, making the API predictable.
With 55 tools, the server far exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. Even for a broad supply chain platform, 50+ tools hits the rubric's 'extreme mismatch' threshold. The domain is comprehensive, but the sheer number overwhelms and likely complicates agent tool selection.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle from project creation, BOM management, sourcing, quoting, planning, checkout handoff, orders, returns, issues, warranties, catalog updates, supplier profiles, and validation. It handles buyer and supplier sides with appropriate state transitions, and includes meta tools for connection and schema guidance. No obvious critical gaps exist.