ingrammicro_modify_order

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important operational constraints: the 24-hour window, the void-after-24h behavior, failure on non-held orders, and the human-confirmation requirement. This goes well beyond what the schema or annotations alone provide.

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 compact and front-loaded: the primary purpose is stated first, followed by critical constraints and a safety note. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 order-modification tool, the description covers prerequisites, the time window, failure behavior, and the need for human confirmation. Return-value details are covered by the output schema, and parameter details by the input schema. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide correctly when and how to invoke it.

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 100%, with each parameter already thoroughly documented via descriptions and examples. The description adds high-level operation mapping (lines, ship-to, release) but does not materially improve on the detailed parameter docs already present in 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 uses a specific verb ('Change') with a clear resource ('an order placed with the customer-hold flag') and enumerates the exact operations: add/update/delete lines, change ship-to, or release the hold. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_order or create_order.

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 explicitly states when the tool works (within ~24 hours, customer-hold flag required) and gives a hard exclusion: orders without the flag cannot be modified and the call fails. It also advises human confirmation before changing quantities or shipping address. It does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives, so it falls just 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.