Release Production Order

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: release status fields are read-only in PATCH, and this function import is the only way to change them. This explains the tool's unique behavior beyond what annotations provide, without contradiction.

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 two sentences long, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action and explaining a key constraint. No redundant information; every sentence adds value. It is concise and front-loaded with the primary 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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and annotations are present, the description covers the essential context: it is a release action, it's the only way, and the parameter is the order number. It does not need to cover more since the tool is simple. The OData reference adds useful technical context.

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 a single parameter 'manufacturingOrder' described as 'Production/manufacturing order number'. The description mentions it's an OData function import, which adds technical context, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool releases a production/manufacturing order, using specific verb 'Release' and resource 'production/manufacturing order'. It distinguishes from update operations by noting that release status fields are read-only via PATCH, and this is the only way to perform the action. No sibling tool has a similar purpose, so it is well-differentiated.

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: it is the exclusive method to release an order, as opposed to PATCH which cannot modify release status. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it (e.g., already released), the destructiveHint annotation implies caution, and the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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