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.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'MUTATES A LIVE ORDER.' It adds genuinely new behavioral context by specifying the update is partial, meaning unspecified attributes are left intact — an important distinction from a full replace that annotations do not convey. It still omits auth requirements, reversibility, and rate limits.
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 tight sentences, with the destructive warning front-loaded before the mechanics. Every clause carries information: the mutation warning, the semantics of partial update, the call shape, and the underlying endpoint. No filler.
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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema and a free-form fields object, the description covers the essentials: mutation risk, partial-update semantics, required inputs, an example, and the backing REST endpoint. It stops short of documenting error behavior or permission requirements, which keeps it just below fully complete.
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, but the description earns more: the `fields` parameter is a free-form object with additionalProperties and no enumerated keys, and the description supplies a concrete example ('{"status":"complete"}') plus candidate attributes (status, fulfillment, notes) that the schema cannot express.
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 and resource ('Partially update an existing order by id') and immediately scopes it with examples of what can change (status, fulfillment, notes). An agent can distinguish this from swell_get_order, swell_list_orders, and swell_update_product without opening any 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?
The description tells the agent how to call it ('Provide the id plus a `fields` object of attributes to change') but never states when to prefer this over reading an order first or over other update tools, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than guided.
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.