apply_order_edit

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It doesn't mention that applying an order edit is likely a mutating irreversible operation, that the order must be in a certain state, or that the edit should be pre-calculated. No side effects, permissions, or failure modes are disclosed.

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 sentence and thus brief, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It provides no useful structure or content beyond restating the tool name. The brevity doesn't serve the reader's understanding.

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?

This tool has 5 parameters including nested arrays, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides almost no operational context: no indication of workflow (e.g., calculate first), expected outcome, prerequisites, or side effects. An agent cannot correctly use this tool based on the description alone.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already describes all five parameters, but the tool description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters form an 'order edit' or how edits, removals, and additions interact. It fully relies on the 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?

The description 'Apply an order edit to the order' essentially paraphrases the tool name without adding meaning. It gives a generic verb and resource but fails to specify what an 'order edit' entails or how it differs from related tools like calculate_order_edit or add_line_items_to_order. This borders on a tautology.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description doesn't state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_line_items_to_order, remove_line_items_from_order, or calculate_order_edit. There is no context, prerequisite, or exclusion mention.

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