calculate_order_edit

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. It discloses the critical behavioral trait that it does not apply changes, which is essential for an agent to know it's a non-mutating operation. It does not elaborate on other aspects like output format or side effects, but the most important safety-relevant behavior is addressed.

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 that is front-loaded with the verb 'Calculate' and contains no wasted words. Every word conveys necessary information about the tool's purpose and non-applying behavior.

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 schema thoroughly documents all four parameters and their nested structures, but there is no output schema or annotations to flesh out expectations. The description does not mention what the tool returns or how it connects with apply_order_edit, leaving the agent to infer the output and workflow. Given the moderate complexity and missing output information, a score of 3 is reasonable.

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%, with all parameters having meaningful descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Order ID to edit', 'Items to add'). The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('order edit') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like apply_order_edit by stating it operates 'without applying them'. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'without applying them' provides clear context that this tool is for previewing changes rather than committing them, which informs when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, so it lacks full guidance on when to choose it over apply_order_edit.

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