order_lifecycle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully shoulders the transparency burden. It declares MODE: write, AUTH: OAuth 2.0 required, CREDITS: 0.5 credits, and OUTPUT: returns {order_id, previous_status, new_status}. It also flags the destructive nature: 'DESTRUCTIVE: archive stops all line item delivery under the order.' This covers mutation, authentication, cost, return format, and side effects thoroughly.

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, using a structured format with labeled sections (MODE, AUTH, CREDITS, OUTPUT, WHEN TO USE, DESTRUCTIVE). Every sentence adds value—no fluff, and the most critical information is front-loaded in the first line.

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?

The tool involves mutation with 4 parameters and no output schema. The description covers all essential aspects: purpose, when to use, authentication requirements, credit cost, return format, and destructive consequences. It leaves no significant gaps for an agent to interpret.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing detailed descriptions for each parameter, including enum options and required fields. The description adds context about confirmation_token being required for archive and the destructive nature of archive, which enhances understanding beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, the additional description justifies a score above baseline 3.

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 starts with 'Perform lifecycle status transitions on a GAM Order (approve, archive, disapprove).' It clearly states the specific actions and the resource (GAM Order), distinguishing it from sibling tools like line_item_lifecycle or orders.

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?

Includes a 'WHEN TO USE' section that explicitly states 'Use this for order status transitions. For data updates, use the orders update action.' This provides clear context and an alternative, helping the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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