update_order

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as partial update semantics, field validation, or side effects. Both annotations and description are consistent, but the description contributes nothing beyond them.

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 extremely concise at only three words, which is good for front-loading, but it is under-specified for a tool with 23 parameters. It reads more like a summary than a standalone description, and while not verbose, it could benefit from additional structured context.

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?

Given a complex mutation tool with 23 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral notes, a three-word description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, editing semantics, or the intended usage context, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema and sibling tool names.

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 input schema provides descriptions for 74% of the 23 parameters, including detailed notes for fields like mwst_type, document_nr, and mwst_is_net. The description 'Edit an order' adds no parameter information, but the schema largely covers that need, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high-ish coverage.

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 'Edit an order' uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('an order'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_order, delete_order, or get_order. It is concise and unambiguous, though it does not elaborate on the scope or fields involved.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_order or delete_order. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or context, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and resource type.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.