teapplix_mark_reviewMark one or more orders for manual review. Returns a single scalar status, not a per-order array. [DEMO]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| TxnIds | Yes | List of Teapplix order IDs to flag for review. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Status | No | ||
| Message | No | ||
| Success | No | ||
| Description | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations providing idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds the important return-value nuance ('single scalar status, not a per-order array'). This helps prevent the agent from expecting an array, adding behavioral context beyond 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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the action, the second clarifies the return type. The [DEMO] marker is a minor artifact but doesn't detract.
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?
For a single-parameter flagging operation with an output schema and sufficient annotations, the description covers the essential nuance (scalar return). It doesn't explain side effects, but the operation is simple and the annotations cover safety. A minor gap is the lack of context on when manual review is triggered.
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?
The schema already documents the only parameter with a clear description. The description's repetition of 'one or more orders' adds no new syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
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 uses the specific verb 'Mark' with the resource 'orders for manual review', clearly stating the operation. The added note about returning a scalar status adds specificity, distinguishing its output contract.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like teapplix_manage_queue or teapplix_update_order. There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering, or when manual review is appropriate.
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.