Create manual orders by referencing product record IDs or adding ad-hoc lines with custom name and price in minor units. Requires user confirmation before creation.
Create a manual (admin-entered) order. Each item references a product recordId or is an ad-hoc line with name+price (minor units). Only call after the user confirms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | No | ||
| customerId | No | ||
| customerEmail | No | Customer email for the order |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.73.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the order is manual/admin-entered and the item structure (recordId vs ad-hoc line), and adds the confirmation requirement. However, it does not mention side effects such as payment processing, email notifications, or that it creates a persistent record, though that is implicit from 'create'. Some behavioral context is missing.
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 concise: two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then provides item details, then the usage condition. Every sentence earns its place.
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 (array of items with multiple fields) and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, item structure, and when to call. The only notable omission is explanation of customer fields, but the schema marks them as optional, so it's acceptable. Overall, an agent can correctly invoke this tool based on the description.
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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by explaining the two item types (references a product recordId or ad-hoc name+price), which clarifies the relationship between fields. But it does not explain customerId or customerEmail, which are undocumented in the schema, leaving a gap for those parameters.
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 a specific verb 'Create' and resource 'manual (admin-entered) order', distinguishing it from the many order-related siblings (list_orders, edit_order, etc.) by emphasizing the manual/admin nature. It also clarifies the two item types, making the tool's function unambiguous.
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 gives an explicit condition: 'Only call after the user confirms', which is a clear when-to-use guideline. It also implies the tool is for admin-entered orders, contrasting with customer-facing flows. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the purpose is distinct enough from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.