convert_proposal_to_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the signing precondition but fails to explain side effects such as whether the original proposal is marked as converted, a new order is created, or if further validation is required. This is a significant gap 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with precise vocabulary and zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and the precondition.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description leaves out important details about the outcome of the conversion (e.g., state of the original proposal, newly created order). Without annotations, this gap prevents the description from being fully self-contained.

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?

The schema already describes the only parameter thoroughly, including the required status (2). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('convert') with explicit objects: a signed proposal to a customer order. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_proposal and create_order, and the phrase 'devis signé' adds a key precondition.

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 implies usage when a proposal is signed and needs conversion, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The schema provides the status condition, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus create_order or validate_order.

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