Update ownership, status, or resolution for a buyer-reported issue on the authenticated supplier's merchant order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| issue_id | Yes | ||
| order_id | Yes | ||
| owner_type | No | ||
| resolution | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent operation. The description adds context about the specific fields updated and the scope (authenticated supplier's merchant order), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not detail open-world side effects, but the openWorldHint annotation covers that risk.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Update', and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core action and scope.
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 tool has an output schema and clear annotations. The description covers the main action and scope but lacks mention of prerequisites or subtle behavioral constraints. For a moderately complex tool, this is adequate, though it could benefit from noting any state dependencies for issue resolution.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions 'ownership, status, or resolution' which maps to owner_type, status, and resolution parameters, but does not explain the enum semantics or elaborate on order_id/issue_id. The schema's patterns and enums provide the necessary detail, so the description adds marginal value.
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 identifies the action (update) and the resource (buyer-reported issue on the authenticated supplier's merchant order), and lists the specific fields (ownership, status, resolution). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like report_order_issue (create) and update_supplier_order (order-level update).
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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: for buyer-reported issues on the supplier's merchant order. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools, such as report_order_issue for creating issues or update_supplier_order for order-level changes.
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.