teapplix_create_orderCreate one or more orders in Teapplix. Per-row Status is one of: Accepted, Declined, Exists. [DEMO]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Orders | Yes | Array of order objects to create. | |
| Operation | No | Operation type. Defaults to Submit when omitted. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| OrdersResult | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to reiterate that this is a write operation. However, it adds only 'Per-row Status is one of: Accepted, Declined, Exists' and '[DEMO]'—neither of which discloses side effects, idempotency, or failure modes. This is minimal value beyond the 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 very concise and front-loads the main purpose in one sentence. The inclusion of the per-row status and '[DEMO]' adds minor extra information but is still efficient and not bloated.
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?
Given the extremely rich input schema, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient for understanding what the tool does. However, it lacks usage guidelines and any behavioral context beyond the raw create action, making it adequate but with clear gaps.
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 100%, with all parameters fully described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 function: 'Create one or more orders in Teapplix.' This is a specific verb (create) and resource (orders). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling teapplix_update_order, the 'create' verb and mention of 'one or more' sufficiently convey the core purpose.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like teapplix_update_order or teapplix_purchase_label. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be preferred, so the agent is left without contextual usage direction.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (orders, labels, rates, zones, profiles). A few name pairs like manage_tag vs manage_order_tags and set_order_ship_options vs update_order could be confused, but the descriptions explicitly clarify when to use each.
All tools share the teapplix_ prefix and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_orders, create_order, purchase_label, validate_address). The only deviation is the bare 'help' tool, which is conventional and does not disrupt the pattern.
At 28 tools, the server is slightly over the ideal 3-15 range, but the breadth of shipping operations (orders, labels, rates, manifests, tracking, configuration) justifies the count. It is not bloated.
The tool surface covers the full order-to-shipping lifecycle: order create/update/retrieve, splitting/merging, label purchase and cancellation, rate quotes, tracking, manifesting, address validation, 3PL submission, and configuration (profiles, warehouses, queues, tags). No significant gaps are apparent.