sales_order_convert

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the validation and creation actions, and warns of risks. However, it does not detail what happens if validation fails (e.g., partial order or error), nor does it mention authentication or rate limits. The behavior is partially transparent.

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 (three sentences plus a brief caution) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. The structure is logical: purpose, steps, important note.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, prerequisite checks, and outcome, which is sufficient given the presence of an output schema for return details. It could briefly mention what the output contains (e.g., order ID), but this is likely in the schema. Overall, it provides adequate context for correct use.

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 100% for the single parameter 'quote_id', and the schema already describes it as a quote identifier. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond that (e.g., 'convert quote' implies the parameter is the source quote). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's action ('convert quote to order') and resource ('quote'), with specific steps ('Validate stock/lead times', 'Checks inventory', 'flags any shortages or long lead times', 'creates the order'). It distinguishes from siblings by implying a sequential process ('Station 3').

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 clear context ('Station 3' in a sequence) and a caution ('Review items at risk before confirming'). It implies when to use (after quote building/negotiation) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.

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