Simulate Order Placement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: all-or-nothing writes ('no partial writes'), transactional isolation against concurrent oversell, and permanent dataset mutation until reset_demo_state is called. These are exactly the mutation semantics an agent must know before invoking.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the write-action framing, with zero filler. Each sentence adds a distinct fact: what it does, atomicity, and transaction/persistence behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't detail return values, yet it still previews the 'success receipt with updated stock levels'. Combined with the atomicity and persistence notes, an agent has everything needed to call this safely.

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 customer_name, items, product_id, and quantity are already documented in the schema. The description adds behavioral meaning (per-line-item stock validation, totals from current catalog prices) but no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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?

Opens with an explicit verb+resource ('places a new simulated order') and enumerates the concrete operations performed (stock validation, inventory decrement, total computation). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming reset_demo_state as the inverse operation.

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?

Frames the tool as a 'Write-action tool' and states the persistence consequence plus the reset_demo_state escape hatch, which tells an agent when this is appropriate versus read-only siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting against alternatives like find_orders or list_all_products, so a 4 rather than 5.

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