jlcpcb_pcb_create_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It prominently warns that this creates a real, paid order, implying financial impact and irreversibility. It also discloses the environment-flag requirement and API credentials, which are critical for an agent to avoid unintended financial transactions. Missing details like response format or error behaviors, but the core safety context is effectively communicated.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, a critical prerequisite warning, and a practical note on parameter construction. Every sentence adds unique value, with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded, placing the most important safety message ('REAL, PAID') at the beginning.

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 complex tool that places a financial order, the description covers the essential context: what it does, prerequisites (env flag, credentials), and the typical input source. It lacks an explicit mention of the return value or post-order behavior, but the presence of sibling tools like jlcpcb_pcb_get_order_detail implies a follow-up workflow. This is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's role and act responsibly.

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?

The schema already describes the params object with a list of keys, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by stating that params are 'typically built from a prior jlcpcb_pcb_calculate_price quote', which informs the agent how to construct or obtain the necessary data. This goes beyond the schema's static list and helps the agent understand the relationship between tools.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'CREATE A REAL, PAID PCB / SMT-stencil order.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., jlcpcb_tdp_create_order) by the 'Official PCB API' prefix and explicit mention of PCB/SMT-stencil ordering, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 usage context: it should be used after a prior jlcpcb_pcb_calculate_price quote, and it is disabled unless JLCPCB_ENABLE_ORDERS=true. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the workflow hint and environment flag give strong practical guidance for when this tool is appropriate.

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