update_order

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully covers behavioral traits: declares [WRITE] operation, immediate irreversible changes (overwritable), potential field restrictions based on order status, and provides API call and return structure. This exceeds expectations.

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 structured with clear sections ([WRITE], purpose, API, return, side effects), uses bullet points for readability, and is concise without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description explains return structure (success, resource_id, message). It covers side effects, partial update behavior, and field restrictions. For a simple update tool, this is fully complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds partial usage guidance (only modified fields) but repeats schema descriptions. It does not elaborate on order_id or the nested object format beyond what's in 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 explicitly states it updates order editable fields (notes, shipping address) and emphasizes partial update behavior. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_order_status and update_order_delivery by focusing on general field modification.

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 clear usage context: modify editable order fields. While it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, the sibling tool list implies that status/delivery updates have separate tools. A slightly higher score would require explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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