public_upsert_order_item

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

The description discloses a real behavioral side effect beyond the annotations – it spends ElevenLabs credits – which the safety annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) do not convey. However, it says nothing about idempotency intent despite idempotentHint=false, nor about permissions or which order states allow the operation.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the single sentence is grammatically garbled ('Spends ElevenLabs credits'), which harms readability without adding information efficiency.

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 mutation tool with a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits what the upsert returns, how the free-form item payload is shaped, and any cost magnitude for the mentioned credit spend.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but adds no parameter meaning. The nested 'request.item' object (free-form additionalProperties) and 'item_id' are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent guessing at required shape.

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 verb+resource ('upsert order item') is identifiable, though the sentence is malformed ('Spends ElevenLabs credits'). It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as public_update_order, public_create_order, or public_remove_order_item.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternative order tools. An agent must infer from the name alone when this upsert applies versus public_update_order or public_remove_order_item.

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