Upload a text order (write)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful precondition (requires AIOTIC_MCP_ALLOW_WRITES=true) plus the test-tenant targeting. However it says nothing about what is created, idempotency, error behavior, or the ask/side effects beyond the raw endpoint, leaving notable gaps for a 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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the endpoint and payload, followed by scope and the required flag. Little wasted text, though it crams several ideas (endpoint, payload, scope, env requirement) into one clause chain.

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?

Given a write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, tenant scope, and the write-enabling flag. It still omits parameter details (request_id, filename constraints) and any notion of return value or failure modes, so it is only partially complete.

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, but it only loosely covers content and filename ('one text/markdown file built from the given content') and says nothing about the request_id UUID parameter or filename's txt/md pattern. Half the parameters remain opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (upload a text order) and adds the mechanism (POST /order/upload, builds one text/markdown file from content). It is clearly a write/upload operation, distinguishable from sibling read tools like list_orders or get_order_status. It stops short of naming any sibling alternative explicitly.

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?

It scopes intended use to 'exercising the flow against the mock/test tenant,' which is useful usage context, but it never states when to use this versus related write tools (e.g. send_order_to_erp) or any explicit exclusions. Guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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