update_order

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), the description discloses a key side effect: status transitions to 'shipped' notify the customer webhook. It also clarifies the limitation of the 'refunded' status (label change only, not actual refund). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a mutation tool.

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 three sentences, with the main purpose in the first sentence, the side effect in the second, and a necessary caveat in the third. No padding or redundancy.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, allowed statuses, a critical side effect, and a limitation. It omits return value details, but that's not explicitly required. The description is sufficiently complete for safe invocation.

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?

While the schema provides names, types, and an enum, the description adds meaning by explaining what statuses are allowed, that status='shipped' triggers a webhook, and that 'refunded' is just a label. It also explicitly mentions the updatable fields (status, tracking number, notes) in the opening sentence, helping the agent map purpose to parameters.

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 opens with 'Update an order’s status, tracking number, or notes,' a specific verb and resource with distinct fields. It clearly differentiates from sibling update tools (e.g., update_category, update_product) by focusing on order-specific fields and status semantics.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (updating order fields) and includes an explicit exclusion: 'to actually refund money, the merchant must use the dashboard — this tool only changes the label.' It doesn't name alternative tools for other order actions, but the refund note offers meaningful when-not-to guidance.

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