create_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two genuinely useful traits: orders are in-memory (sandbox, non-durable) and idempotency is the caller's responsibility. It still omits auth/permission requirements, whether the created order must be paid via pay_order, and what identifier is returned for later use.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the required shape and the key sandbox caveat. No filler, no repetition.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and nested object parameters, the description is thin. It never explains the items payload or user_ref, nor what the caller gets back (an order id is presumably needed to call pay_order), leaving real gaps an agent must guess at.

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 only restates the receiver fields, which the schema already marks required, and says nothing about the required 'items' array (sku/qty shape, whether qty defaults) or the optional 'user_ref' meaning.

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 verb and resource ('Create an order'), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from read-side siblings like get_order and list_orders. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with pay_order, which is the nearest write-side sibling and the natural next step.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative. An agent must infer from the sibling list that create_order precedes pay_order and that list_orders/get_order are read paths; nothing in the text routes it.

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