swell_update_orderMUTATES A LIVE ORDER. Partially update an existing order by id — e.g. change status, fulfillment, or notes. Provide the id plus a fields object of attributes to change, e.g. {"status":"complete"}. Swell backend REST API: PUT /orders/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Order id to update (required). | |
| fields | Yes | Partial set of order attributes to update, e.g. {"status":"complete"} or fulfillment fields. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by adding 'MUTATES A LIVE ORDER' in all caps, emphasizing the mutating nature and the 'live' context. It also clarifies partial-update semantics. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it does not discuss side effects or permissions.
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, front-loaded with the mutation warning, and includes the endpoint and a concrete example without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place.
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 mutation tool with a destructive annotation and clear schema, the description is largely sufficient. It includes the API endpoint and a concrete example, though it does not mention the return value, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.
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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (id and fields) with 100% coverage, including an example similar to the description. The description adds no significant new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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's function: 'Partially update an existing order by id' with concrete examples (change status, fulfillment, or notes). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that get/list orders or update products.
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 explains the usage pattern (provide id and a fields object) and gives a use-case example, making it clear when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but no sibling tool offers order-update functionality, so the guidance is adequate.
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.