Test Sipariş Durumunu Güncelle (Stage)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the status progression order and environment scope but omits important details such as required permissions, side effects (e.g., whether it triggers real-world events), error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool that likely has real effects, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second provides vital context on status progression and ID sourcing. No redundant or filler content.

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's complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers core aspects: environment, status sequence, and ID source. However, it does not describe the expected return value, error conditions, or what happens if the status transition is invalid. With no output schema, more explanation on response behavior would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining where to get packageId and lineId (from trendyol_get_orders) and clarifying the status progression. However, it does not elaborate on the structure of the 'lines' array or the 'params' object beyond what the schema already provides. The added context is moderate.

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 it updates the status of a test order package in the STAGE environment, specifies the status progression sequence, and explains how to obtain required IDs from another tool. This specificity differentiates it from sibling tools like trendyol_create_test_order or trendyol_get_orders.

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 context for when to use this tool: updating test order statuses in the STAGE environment. It explains the status flow and references trendyol_get_orders for ID retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar updates (e.g., for production orders).

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