draft_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical trait: the tool does not execute orders but creates drafts requiring manual approval, which is essential safety-related context not visible in the schema. It does not detail what happens after approval but covers the key non-execution behavior.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the tool's purpose, and the second adds the critical safety policy. No redundant or filler content.

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 adequately explains the tool's role and the mandatory approval workflow, and an output schema exists to cover return values. It could improve by explicitly contrasting with preview_order, but the given detail is sufficient for an agent to understand how to use the 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but there is no need for it since the schema fully explains each parameter.

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 the specific verb 'drafts' with the resource 'order for human review and approval', clearly stating the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from any direct order-execution path by noting that Claude never places orders directly, which differentiates it from sibling tools like preview_order.

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?

It conveys that all orders must be drafted and manually approved, establishing this as the required tool for order placement. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, the safety policy provides clear contextual guidance for when this tool should be invoked.

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