create_suborder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or the nature of the operation (e.g., whether it is immediate or asynchronous). For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded to include essential behavioral or usage information without losing conciseness.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too terse. It does not explain what happens upon success (e.g., returns a suborder object?), what prerequisites are needed (e.g., existence of parent order), or error scenarios. For a creation tool, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 75%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify parameter relationships, valid formats (e.g., for 'number'), or constraints (e.g., uniqueness).

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 'Opretter en underordre på en eksisterende ordre' clearly identifies the action (create suborder), the resource (underordre/suborder), and the constraint (on an existing order). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_order, which creates a main order, and other suborder-related tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., existence of parent order), and no conditions for appropriate usage. It is purely declarative without contextual advice.

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