wb_supply_add_orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does disclose two non-obvious consequences: a hard limit of 100 and that added tasks transition to 'confirm.' This is meaningful state-change information beyond the pure 'add' semantics, though idempotency, duplicate handling, and failure modes are not addressed.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and packs in the limit and side effect. The Russian parenthetical is redundant with the English text, which keeps it from being a 5, but there is no filler or buried context.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the core information is present: what it adds, to what, the maximum batch size, and the resulting state change. It still leaves gaps around prerequisites, duplicate orders, and error behavior, so it is adequate rather than 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 conveys the action-level roles of the two parameters (supply and orders) and adds the max-100 constraint, but it does not explicitly describe the format or semantics of supply_id or order_ids beyond what their names imply.

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 opening verb 'Add' plus the objects 'assembly tasks/orders' and target 'FBS supply' clearly identify the operation, and the Russian gloss 'добавить заказы в поставку' removes ambiguity. It is distinct from sibling supply tools like wb_supply_create or wb_supply_trbx_add, though it never names them explicitly.

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 action-oriented phrasing implies the tool is for adding orders to an existing FBS supply, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison with alternatives such as wb_supply_create or wb_supply_trbx_add. An agent must infer the selection criteria from the tool name and high-level action.

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