change_order_confirmation_status

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

The description states 'Changes status', aligning with the annotation's readOnlyHint=false, but adds no further behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. The date_time parameter's optional nature and the exact implication of changing status (e.g., side effects, reversibility) are not disclosed, so the description adds moderate value.

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 a single, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core action. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it easily scannable.

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 the lack of an output schema and the presence of siblings, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the behavior of the date_time parameter, how the status change affects related data, or what the return value indicates. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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%, with all three parameters described in the input schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, leading to a baseline score of 3.

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 'Changes status of specified order confirmation' clearly states a specific verb ('Changes') and resource ('status of order confirmation'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like change_invoice_status, change_offer_status, etc., by targeting order confirmations specifically.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_order_confirmation or other change_status tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without direction.

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