Update Order

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses partial-patch semantics (unprovided fields remain unchanged), the hard constraint that shipped orders cannot be updated, and specific error codes including 409 for shipped orders and 401 for invalid credentials. These are real behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from idempotentHint or destructiveHint alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the core semantics in the first sentence, then organized under bolded When to use / Parameters / Returns / Errors headings. Every line carries operational value and there is no filler.

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?

Covers patch behavior, prerequisites, required parameter, return value, and failure modes for a nested, mutation-heavy tool. With an output schema present, the brief 'Returns' note is sufficient and nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the required-field fact (order_id) and the useful framing that all other fields mirror starshipit_create_order while being optional. That cross-reference to a sibling tool's shape is meaning the schema cannot convey on its own.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing unshipped order in StarShipIt') and scopes it to unshipped orders, which narrows it against siblings like starshipit_delete_order or starshipit_get_order. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related mutation siblings starshipit_update_orders_bulk and starshipit_batch_update_orders, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' guidance lists concrete scenarios (correct order data, change carrier/shipping method, update address, add/replace items) and ties them to a lifecycle point ('before a label is printed'). It stops short of naming alternatives such as the bulk update tools for multi-order edits, so the when-not is implied rather than stated.

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