update_order

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

Annotations already establish idempotency. The description adds the typical status flow (pending -> processing -> completed), which is useful but minimal. It doesn't disclose other behavioral aspects like whether updating billing/shipping triggers side effects, but the annotations cover the core safety trait.

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?

Two concise sentences with no waste. The main function is front-loaded, and the additional sentence adds a common use case and helpful pointer.

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 description is adequate for a standard update tool, but it doesn't explicitly mention updatable fields beyond status (billing, shipping, customer_note) or clarify the response 'fields' parameter. The schema covers this, but the description could be more complete given the nested objects and no output schema.

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 parameters are well defined. The description adds a cross-reference for statuses but doesn't enrich beyond the schema. The 'fields' parameter's purpose as a response filter is only in the schema, not reinforced in the 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 clearly states the tool updates an order, distinguishing it from create/get/delete order tools. It also provides a specific common use case (changing status) which further clarifies its purpose.

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 indicates when to use it (for updates, especially status changes) and points to get_order_totals for valid statuses, providing an alternative for status lookup. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude creation/deletion, though this is obvious from the name and siblings.

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