Advance a warranty claim through supplier review, approval, replacement, resolution, or rejection with a merchant reference and durable history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| order_id | Yes | ||
| warranty_claim_id | Yes | ||
| supplier_reference | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds "durable history," suggesting updates are recorded and persisted, and enumerates the statuses that can be set. It does not contradict annotations. However, it does not disclose transition rules or side effects like whether previous statuses are overwritten.
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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and it avoids redundant filler. However, the trailing phrase "with a merchant reference and durable history" is slightly vague and could be misread as an instruction rather than context.
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?
An output schema exists, so return value documentation is not needed, but the tool has five parameters, three required, and six status transitions. The description lacks workflow constraints (e.g., whether statuses can skip steps), prerequisites like an existing claim, and any reference to the relationship with open_warranty_claim. It is minimally viable for an agent but leaves many operational details unstated.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at "merchant reference" (likely supplier_reference) and lists some status values. It does not explain the required order_id or warranty_claim_id formats or the optional note. The mapping between "merchant reference" and supplier_reference is ambiguous, adding little beyond the schema's raw property names.
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 verb "Advance" plus the resource "warranty claim" clearly specifies the action, and the listed statuses (review, approval, replacement, resolution, rejection) define the scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like open_warranty_claim by focusing on advancing an existing claim through supplier states.
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 the tool is for moving a warranty claim forward in its lifecycle, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like open_warranty_claim or other update tools. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the context.
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.