Bestil via indkøb

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

Annotations already declare the operation is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the mutation nature is covered. The description adds that the order is 'ready after typically 2 to 3 days' with 'notification in the app,' which is useful post-call behavior. However, it omits critical details for a write operation with no annotations beyond hints: whether the order can be cancelled, whether it incurs cost, and what happens if items are not actually sold out. The behavioral disclosure is thin.

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 no waste, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple ordering tool, though the second sentence about timing and notification could be seen as slightly peripheral to the tool's invocation.

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 non-idempotent write tool with no output schema, three parameters (one nested), and no usage routing among many siblings, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what happens on success/failure, whether the order is cancellable, or how it relates to other ordering tools, leaving the agent with too little to invoke it confidently.

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 description coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents lagerId and projektId, including cross-references to sibling tools. The description adds no parameter-level meaning whatsoever. With partial schema coverage, a baseline 3 is appropriate, but the description does nothing to compensate for the undocumented nested 'linjer' array fields.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Bestil forbrugsvarer' – order consumables), which is clear enough. However, it adds a condition ('der er udsolgt' – that are sold out) without stating whether this is a requirement or just typical context, and it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like lager_bestilling_hent or lager_forbrugsvarer. The purpose is discernible but not sharply 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 26 sibling tools, several of which relate to ordering (lager_bestilling_hent, lager_bestilling_fortryd, lager_ansvarlig_send_bestillingsliste), the absence of when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria is a significant gap. The phrase 'der er udsolgt' hints at a condition but is not framed as a usage rule.

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