set_sales_order

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight. It usefully discloses that apply is unavailable and that this is a preview-first replacement, but it omits critical details such as side effects, authentication requirements, preview lifecycle, and the meaning of the many hash/idempotency parameters.

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 sentences with no filler, and the key constraint (preview-first, apply unavailable) is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the information it chooses to convey.

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 a complex 10-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too incomplete. It omits parameter explanations, usage scenarios, and return behavior, leaving an agent with major gaps to fill.

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 schema has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. It does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving mode, dryRun, previewToken, and the expected* hashes entirely unexplained.

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 tool as a preview-first replacement for a deprecated sales-order write operation, which conveys its resource and intent. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate from the likely sibling upsert_sales_order, leaving some ambiguity about when each should be chosen.

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 the tool should be used in preview mode and that apply is currently unavailable, which hints at when it applies. But it provides no explicit guidance on alternatives, prerequisites, or when to avoid it, so usage remains largely inferred.

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