cdek_create_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses asynchronous behavior and the need for subsequent verification, but lacks details on permissions, error conditions, rate limits, or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured: a brief summary, followed by async note, then direction details, and finally an args list. It is front-loaded with purpose. While slightly verbose for some args, it remains readable and avoids unnecessary fluff.

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's complexity (13 params, async behavior) and the presence of an output schema (so return values are covered), the description is fairly complete. It explains two usage directions, default parameter behaviors, and the need to check results. It could include error handling or edge cases, but overall it provides sufficient context for usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaning for all 13 parameters via the 'Args' section. It explains each parameter's role (e.g., pvz is PVZ code or address, recipient_phone format), defaults, and overrides. However, some parameters (e.g., address format) lack precise constraints, preventing a perfect score.

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 'Создает в ИС СДЭК заказ на доставку' (creates an order in CDEK IS), with explicit reference to endpoint POST /v2/orders. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cdek_update_order and cdek_delete_order by focusing on creation, and further specifies two directions (from_me/to_me), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 explains when to use the tool (to create a delivery order) and includes important context: asynchronous behavior (status ACCEPTED does not guarantee creation), the need to verify via other methods, and two usage scenarios with specific tariffs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools, though siblings imply this.

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