set_manufacturing_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose important traits: preview-first behavior and that apply/write is currently unavailable. Beyond that it explains nothing about the mutation semantics, idempotency, hash checks, or what a preview produces.

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?

Two short sentences with the core concept front-loaded, so it is appropriately sized. But the phrasing is cryptic and omits the concrete functionality an agent needs, so the brevity trades away usefulness.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too thin. It leaves the preview/apply model, parameter usage, and expected behavior almost entirely unaddressed.

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 tool has 10 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. Critical parameters like dryRun (default true), mode (patch/replace), previewToken, idempotencyKey, and the three expected*Hash guards are entirely undocumented in either the schema or the description.

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 identifies the resource (manufacturing-order write) and states it is a 'preview-first replacement for the deprecated immediate' write, which narrows its role. However, it never states a clear verb+action for what the tool actually does, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling upsert_manufacturing_order. Purpose is implied rather than defined.

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?

It implies preview should be used and that apply is unavailable, giving partial when-to-use context. But it names no alternatives (e.g., upsert_manufacturing_order) and gives no explicit condition for choosing this over its siblings, leaving routing guidance to inference.

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