acedatacloud_refresh_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, yet it only says 'Requires confirmation.' It does not explain why confirmation is needed, whether the operation mutates the order, what external calls happen, or whether the action is reversible. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that refreshes data from an external provider.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes the critical confirmation requirement. No wasted 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?

The tool has a small parameter set, full schema coverage, and an output schema, so the basics are present. However, given no annotations and the mutating/external nature of a refresh, the description could better explain the confirmation flow, consequences, and when to prefer other order-related tools.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for confirm, order_id, and payer_id. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reinforcing the confirmation requirement already present in the confirm parameter's schema description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Refresh an order from its payment provider'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_order, pay_order, and verify_apple_order. It also notes a key behavioral requirement ('Requires confirmation') that sets it apart.

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 implies when to use the tool (when an order's state needs syncing from the payment provider) but gives no explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria. It does not mention that get_order or get_order_summary should be used for local reads, nor does it explain when refresh is unnecessary.

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