request_address_changeFragt eine Lieferadressaenderung fuer eine noch nicht versandte Bestellung des verknuepften Kunden an (Ticket ans Team). Erfordert ein via link_account verknuepftes token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | session_token aus link_account. | |
| auftrag | No | Optional: Auftragsnummer (sonst neueste offene Bestellung). | |
| neue_adresse | Yes | Vollstaendige neue Lieferadresse. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite lacking annotations, the description reveals that the tool creates a ticket for a team, indicating it is a request rather than a direct change. It also notes the token requirement, aiding transparency.
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?
Two sentences efficiently convey purpose and prerequisite, with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded structure ensures quick comprehension.
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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, condition, and prerequisite well. Lacks details on failure scenarios or response format, but sufficient for basic use.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating the token's origin, which is already in the schema.
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 requests a delivery address change for a not-yet-shipped order of a linked customer, distinct from any sibling tools. It specifies the action, resource, and context.
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 when to use (for unshipped orders of linked customer) and prerequisites (token from link_account), but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or scenarios.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct function: inventory checks, cart creation, product search, order management, loyalty, support. No overlap among search_products, list_products, and get_product; similarly, list_orders and request_address_change are unique.
All tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_availability, create_cart, link_account) with consistent snake_case and English verbs, even though the shop is German. No mix of conventions.
19 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range for a focused server, but the number is justified by the breadth of shop functionality (product browsing, orders, cart, loyalty, guides, support). Not excessive.
Covers core shopping flows: product discovery, cart creation, order tracking, and account linking. However, missing tools for cart modification (add/remove items), order cancellation/returns, and checkout. These gaps may cause agent failures.