update_order_confirmation

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with the description. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'Updates', such as permission requirements, partial vs full update behavior, or side effects. openWorldHint=true suggests potential unexpected behaviors but is not addressed.

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 concise sentence that quickly conveys the action and resource. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Despite 20 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain return values, prerequisites, or any contextual hints. It is minimal for a complex update tool, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, resulting in a baseline score.

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 verb 'Updates' and the resource 'specified order confirmation', making the basic action obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'change_order_confirmation_status' which also updates but only status, lacking specificity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'change_order_confirmation_status' or 'create_order_confirmation'. The agent is left to infer appropriate usage without explicit context.

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