Update Planned Order

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

Annotations already indicate destructive=true and readOnly=false. The description adds example fields but does not elaborate on side effects, required authorizations, or impact on planning. It confirms the update nature but adds limited new behavioral insight.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant words. The key information (update fields on planned order) is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Basic purpose is covered, but given the destructive nature (destructiveHint=true) and lack of output schema, the description could mention expected outcomes, side effects, or prerequisites. It is adequate for a simple update but not 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 covers both parameters (plannedOrder, fields). The description adds concrete examples of fields to update ('quantity, firm indicator'), which adds meaning beyond the generic schema description. For a nested object with additionalProperties, this is helpful.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('existing planned order'), with examples ('quantity, firm indicator'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get, create, list.

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 guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to update vs create vs get). The description implies updating an existing order but does not provide context or exclusions.

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