produce_manufacturing_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the outcome (mark as produced) but does not explain side effects, such as whether stock is updated, whether the operation is reversible, or whether it triggers any downstream processes. This lack of context is a significant gap for a state-transition 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 concise sentence in French, front-loaded with the action verb. It is appropriately brief, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. No wasted words, but also no extra value.

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 the tool has two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., order must be validated first), consequences (e.g., stock impact), or what happens to the order after marking. Sibling tools suggest a workflow, but the description does not explain where this step fits.

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 description adds no parameter information. The schema covers 50% of parameters (qty has a description, id does not), but the description does not compensate for the undefined 'id' parameter. It does not clarify that 'id' refers to the manufacturing order ID, nor does it explain any constraints on 'qty' beyond what the schema already says.

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 the action: mark a manufacturing order (OF) as produced/finished. It distinguishes itself from siblings like validate_manufacturing_order by specifying the production completion step. However, the abbreviation 'OF' is not expanded, which slightly reduces clarity for users unfamiliar with French manufacturing terminology.

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 usage context is implied: it is used to mark production as finished, likely after a manufacturing order has been validated. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus validate or other related tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or alternatives. The description relies on the user inferring the workflow.

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