wb_cc_order_action

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool changes status but does not disclose side effects, state transition rules, reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens when an invalid action is supplied.

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 short and front-loaded, with the action verb and allowed values placed prominently. The '[P0]' prefix and Russian gloss add minor noise but do not obscure the core information.

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?

Given the tool's low parameter complexity and simple enum, the description is minimally adequate for identifying the operation. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks context about status transition constraints and expected response behavior, so it is not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It restates the action enum already present in the schema but adds no deeper meaning about each action's effect, and it provides no explanation of order_id beyond what the schema's type implies.

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 states a specific action: 'Change click-and-collect status', and enumerates the allowed action values. It clearly identifies the resource and operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling read-only status tools like wb_cc_orders_status.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or constraints such as which actions are valid for a given current status. The usage is only implied by the verb 'Change'.

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