split_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses side effects: the original order status may change, the operation is irreversible, and already shipped orders cannot be split. It also specifies the API endpoint (POST /v1/orders/{order_id}/split). This provides comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage, API call, return structure, and side effects. It is concise overall, though slightly lengthy due to the side effects list. The information is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 return structure (dict with success, resource_id, message) despite no output schema, and lists important side effects. However, it lacks prerequisites like order existence or status constraints beyond 'order already shipped', making it slightly incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 basic parameter descriptions. The description adds that 'split_config' is a dictionary following Shopline API specs, but does not elaborate on its structure. While this adds some context, it does not significantly surpass the schema's explanations, meriting a baseline score of 3.

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 purpose: splitting an order into multiple child shipping documents. It uses a specific verb-resource combination ('split order') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cancel_order' or 'update_order' by focusing on the splitting functionality.

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 usage scenarios ('分批到貨' and '不同倉庫分開出貨') but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives. Sibling tools include other order modifications, but no direct comparison is made.

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