create_store_order_line

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

Description discloses authentication method ('Authenticated via API key'), rate limit ('Max 10 concurrent requests'), and mode support ('Respects read-only and dry-run modes'). Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which is consistent. However, it does not explicitly describe error behavior on constraint violations (e.g., duplicate line_id).

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?

Description is concise: one-sentence summary, then structured constraints, authentication info, parameter list, and return type. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Description covers all aspects: purpose, prerequisites (existing order, existing products), when to use (manual vs automated integration), authentication, rate limits, parameter details, and return value (JSON with created line object). Output schema exists, so return description is sufficient.

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%, but description compensates by explaining each parameter: line_id must be unique, product_id and product_variant_id must reference existing, additional_fields is optional, account explained with environment variable reference. Also advises obtaining store_id from list_ecommerce_stores. Adds significant value beyond schema titles.

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?

Description clearly states 'Add a line item to an existing e-commerce order.' This specifies the verb 'add' and the resource 'line item', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_store_order (creates order) and update_store_order_line (modifies line).

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?

Description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Manual commerce writes suit custom/headless stores; Shopify and WooCommerce integrations sync order lines automatically.' Also states prerequisites (line_id must be unique, product and variant must exist). This effectively differentiates from automated integration scenarios.

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