Awd_updateInbound

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses remote execution and the draft-status precondition, but does not state what fields are updated, side effects, permissions, or response behavior. 'Catalog entry' is also unexplained and adds ambiguity.

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 the core update statement is prominent. However, the opening 'Catalog entry. Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here.' is cryptic and could be clarified while remaining concise.

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 mutating update operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it lacks required identifiers or payload, effect details, and return shape. The status constraint is helpful but not sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool with confidence.

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 declares no properties yet allows additionalProperties, so an agent cannot learn what identifies the inbound order or what update payload to send. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the resource name, failing to compensate for the permissive empty 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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Updates an AWD inbound order,' with clear preconditions 'DRAFT status and not yet confirmed.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like Awd_confirmInbound, Awd_cancelInbound, and Awd_createInbound without needing to inspect their schemas.

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?

Gives clear applicability context: only for inbound orders in DRAFT and not yet confirmed, and notes that it runs in the Kuudo deployment rather than locally. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the status condition acts as an implicit exclusion.

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