teapplix_revert_split_orderRevert a previously split order back to a single order. [DEMO]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| TxnId | Yes | TxnId of the original (parent) order to revert. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| OrdersResult | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral details (e.g., what happens to child orders, reversibility, or error states) beyond stating the revert intent. It does not contradict annotations but also enriches them minimally.
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, concise sentence with no filler. '[DEMO]' is a minor suffix but does not detract from clarity or structure.
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 simple one-parameter destructive operation with annotations and an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It could mention prerequisites or failure modes, but 'previously split order' implies the main prerequisite, and the schema covers the parameter.
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 the TxnId parameter documented as 'TxnId of the original (parent) order to revert.' The description adds no extra semantic details beyond the schema, but the schema fully covers the meaning.
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 states a specific verb ('revert'), resource ('previously split order'), and outcome ('back to a single order'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like teapplix_split_order and teapplix_split_order_cont.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: after an order has been split and you want to undo that split. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the tool name and sibling set.
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.