wb_dbs_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 reveals the action set and the conditional need for buyer code, but does not say whether changes are reversible, what authorization is required, what side effects occur, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 extremely compact and front-loads the core operation before listing actions and the conditional code requirement. Every element contributes information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 is adequate for performing the call: it specifies the target resource, the action values, and the code precondition for two actions. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return behavior, error expectations, and any status-transition constraints, leaving the agent to infer these.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for poorly documented parameters. It does restate the action enum and the special requirement for code, but order_id is left unexplained beyond what the name implies, and the description adds only marginal value over the schema.

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 verb and resource: "Change DBS order status", which clearly differentiates it from related siblings like wb_dbs_orders_status (likely a status query) and wb_cc_order_action (CC orders). It also enumerates the exact actions supported, leaving no ambiguity about the 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?

The description gives clear usage context by specifying that this tool changes DBS order status and that receive/reject actions additionally require the buyer code. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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