Bulk Update Orders

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it explains partial updates per order, notes that order_id is required in every entry, and documents return summaries with per-order errors plus 400/404/401 error conditions. It stops short of clarifying atomicity, i.e. whether a single malformed or missing order fails the whole batch or only that entry, which is a meaningful gap for a bulk mutation tool.

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 with the core action, then organized into clear 'When to use', 'Parameters', 'Returns', and 'Errors' sections. Every section earns its place by adding routing, parameter, or failure context without redundant wording.

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 bulk update tool with rich schema coverage, annotations covering safety and idempotency, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, usage scenarios, required order_id, returns, and common errors. The main omission is whether bulk updates are atomic or allow partial success, which an agent would need to interpret per-order errors correctly.

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 100%, so the nested order fields, required order_id, and field types are already fully documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the required order_id and optional partial-update nature and gives examples of updateable areas, but adds no field-level syntax 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: update multiple existing orders in a single API call, and uses 'patch many orders at once' to reinforce bulk semantics. It distinguishes itself from single-order update tools by emphasizing multiple orders, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named sibling starshipit_batch_update_orders.

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?

A dedicated 'When to use' section gives clear scenarios such as re-assigning carriers, correcting addresses in bulk, and adding packages to a batch of orders. It does not state when not to use the tool or explicitly name alternatives like single-order update or create-bulk tools, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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