remove_order_item

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

Annotations expose only openWorldHint, so the description carries nearly the full burden. It usefully discloses provider-specific semantics (Printful/Gelato edit in place, Printify cancels + re-creates) and the minimum-item constraint, but never states that removal is irreversible, whether permissions are required, or whether the order/item identifiers change as a result of the re-create path.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and constraint, then supporting semantics, in four tight sentences. A stray bracketed artifact ('[#b20b6e]') at the end is noise but minor.

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 2-required-param mutation with only openWorldHint and no output schema, the description covers scope, precondition, provider behavior, and id sourcing, which is substantial. The remaining gap is the destructive/irreversible profile and how the Printify re-create affects identifiers, which matters for a removal tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents all three params including the order_item_id source ('from get_order_details items[].id'). The description restates that source rather than adding new meaning, and says nothing about the workspace param, so it adds no net value here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a line item from a DRAFT order') with scope (draft-only) and names the sibling add_order_item it mirrors. An agent can distinguish it from add_order_item and other order-mutation tools without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly states when it applies ('Only works while the order is a draft') and a hard precondition ('the order must keep at least one item'), and points to add_order_item for the inverse operation. It does not name an alternative for non-draft removal or explain what to do instead, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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