aryeo_update_order_notesREPLACE the internal notes of an order (visible to your team only, not to the customer). The whole note is overwritten: read the order first and send the full new text. An empty string clears the notes. PUT /orders/{id}/notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes | Aryeo order id (UUID). | |
| internal_notes | Yes | The complete new internal notes (max 2550 characters) (replaces the old text). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations by naming exactly what is lost (the entire prior note) and the read-before-write workflow required to avoid data loss. It also discloses visibility semantics (internal team only, never customer-facing), which annotations cannot express.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive replace semantics and visibility scope front-loaded before the mechanics. Every sentence carries distinct information.
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 two-parameter write with no output schema and both parameters required, the description supplies everything an agent needs: audience, overwrite behavior, clearing semantics, the read-first precondition, and the endpoint. Nothing material is missing.
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, and the description still adds real meaning: internal_notes is a full replacement rather than an append, and an empty string is a valid clearing operation. It does not restate the 2550-character limit, which the schema already handles.
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?
States a specific verb in caps (REPLACE) plus the exact resource and field (internal notes of an order), and immediately disambiguates the audience (team-only, not customer-visible). An agent can distinguish this from aryeo_get_order or other mutators without opening the schema.
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?
Gives clear operative guidance: read the order first and send the complete new text, and empty string clears the notes. It implies the aryeo_get_order prerequisite rather than naming it explicitly, and never states when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the top band.
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.