p2p_close_po_shortStop waiting for what has not arrived: the vendor will not send it. What did arrive stays received and billable. With a reason. Use it when the vendor says the rest is not coming. When nothing has arrived at all, cancel instead. Effects: order closed short.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| po_id | Yes | The order. An existing p2p_po id. | |
| reason | Yes | Why the rest will not come. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-open-world mutation, so the description's job is to add business context. It does that well by explaining that received goods stay received and billable and that a reason is required, though it does not describe reversibility or downstream posting effects.
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 short and front-loaded: it establishes the business situation, then the usage condition, then the alternative, then the effect. Every sentence contributes to deciding whether and how to call the tool.
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 2-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers the trigger, the exclusion, the required reason, and the key business effect on received and billable quantities.
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%, so both parameters are already documented: the existing PO id and the reason. The description reinforces that a reason is needed but adds no syntax, format, or selection guidance beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.
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 business action: stop expecting undelivered quantities and close the order short, while received quantities remain received and billable. The final line, 'Effects: order closed short,' anchors the exact outcome, and the 'cancel instead' sentence distinguishes this tool from the sibling cancel path.
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?
It explicitly states when to use this tool: when the vendor says the remaining quantity is not coming. It also states when not to use it: when nothing has arrived at all, use cancel instead. That is the exact when/when-not/alternative guidance required.
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.