Create purchase order

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds important behavior beyond that: the order is created in Draft status, ordered by the signed-in user, the supplier is not notified, and sending remains a separate app step. It also says the saved order is returned.

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 front-loaded and appropriately sized for a create tool. There is some redundancy between the first sentence and the second sentence, which both say it creates a purchase order, but the repetition is minor and the key behavioral caveats are clear.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior: draft status, supplier notification, sending as a separate step, and returning the saved order. The return value is only described as 'the saved order' without shape details, but the essential call context is present.

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%, and the description lists the main fields (subject, supplier, project, order date, notes, line items and line-item fields) but mostly restates what the schema already documents. It adds little detail about required fields, vendor_id semantics, date formatting, or constraints beyond the schema.

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: creates a draft purchase order to a supplier with line items, optionally for a project. It also distinguishes the action from sending the PO, which it explicitly says remains an app step. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

The description makes clear this is for creating a draft PO, not for sending it, and notes the supplier is not notified. That provides useful usage context. It does not explicitly compare against sibling creation tools such as create_bill, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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