create_manufacturing_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'create' without explaining side effects (e.g., stock impact, BOM validation), required permissions, or reversibility. This is a mutation tool with zero behavioral context.

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?

One short phrase is technically concise, but it is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Every word restates the tool name, providing no informative content, so the minimalism is not earned.

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 an 8-parameter manufacturing order creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain return values, workflow integration, or operational constraints, making it unsafe for an agent to invoke 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 88%, so the schema already documents 7 of 8 parameters well. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, and note_public remains undocumented. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds value.

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 'Créer un ordre de fabrication' is a direct French translation of the tool name, making it a tautology. It restates the name without adding a distinct verb+resource specification or differentiating from sibling tools like validate_manufacturing_order or produce_manufacturing_order.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_manufacturing_order, produce_manufacturing_order, or list_manufacturing_orders. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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