sfc_preview_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the most important trait — the operation is local and non-submitting, which is a genuine safety clarification for a 23-parameter order-builder. However, it says nothing about whether credentials are required, what a validation failure looks like, or what the caller receives back, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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, zero waste, with the non-submission constraint front-loaded where it matters most for a tool named 'preview'. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what a 'preview' returns — a validated payload, a list of validation errors, or both — and it does not. Given the tool's 23-parameter complexity, this is the main missing piece; the call/no-call decision is well covered, the result interpretation is not.

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 only 26% across 23 parameters (7 required), so the description is expected to compensate, and it does not mention a single field. Only 'addOrder payload' hints at the schema as a whole. The agent must infer required fields, formats, and enums (e.g. orderStatus) entirely from a sparsely annotated 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Build and validate an addOrder payload locally', and immediately disambiguates from the sibling that actually submits ('Does NOT submit'). An agent can distinguish this from sfc_create_order without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear sequencing rule: preview here, then 'Call sfc_create_order with confirm=true after customer approval', which names the alternative and the gate condition. It stops short of stating prerequisites (e.g. credentials) or when previewing can be skipped, so it falls just under fully explicit.

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