edit_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it fully replaces the items array (destructive), recomputes totals, and is gated on user confirmation, implying irreversibility. It does not mention permissions or other side effects, but covers the key behavioral traits.

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 zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the usage condition is a concise second sentence. Every word 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?

The description covers the core behavior (full replace, totals recalculation) and the confirmation gate, but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., order existence), potential side effects on discounts or status, or return values (no output schema). Given it is a mutation with no annotations, more context could be provided, but the schema does specify item structure and minItems.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'items' is the new line items array and that totals will be recalculated, but it does not explicitly describe 'orderId' or the exact structure of items beyond the schema's own per-property descriptions. Some meaning is added, but not fully compensates for the coverage gap.

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 the action: 'Replace an order's line items (full replace of the items array)' with a specific resource (order) and behavior (full replacement). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_order_details by emphasizing the full replace semantics and total recalculation.

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?

Provides a clear usage condition: 'Only call after the user confirms.' This sets expectations for when it is appropriate to invoke. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which slightly reduces the score.

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