create_working_order

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: that confirm=true is mandatory. However, it does not explain what happens if confirm=false, whether the order is actually submitted, or any side effects, leaving significant behavioral 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the key requirement. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a state-changing order with an open-ended nested object), the description is far too minimal. It lacks details on the order structure, the confirm behavior beyond requiring true, and any guidance on how this fits with sibling tools. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly based solely on this description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'confirm' parameter (requires true) but provides no meaning for the 'order' object, which is a required, unstructured nested object. The agent cannot infer how to construct a valid order, making the main parameter semantically empty.

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 action (create) and the resource (OTC working order), using a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like update_working_order and delete_working_order by emphasizing creation and the OTC scope.

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 a requirement ('Requires confirm=true') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, contexts, or when-not-to-use, leaving the agent without decision-making help.

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