⚠️ Заказы: сменить статус

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

Annotations mark it as destructive and not idempotent. The description adds that it modifies the order status, transitions depend on current status, and mentions the dryRun parameter for safe preview. However, it does not detail all side effects (e.g., notifications).

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 very short—one sentence plus a warning emoji—making it direct but terse. It avoids fluff but relies on external references. Could be clearer with minimal expansion.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does not explain return values (except dryRun preview). It lacks details on response format, error handling, or post-conditions. For a destructive tool with 5 parameters, this is incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds limited value. It notes transitions depend on status but does not explain parameters beyond schema. The dryRun and idempotencyKey are well-documented in schema, making description redundant.

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 that the tool changes the order status via a transition, with examples like 'confirm', 'ship', 'cancel'. It differentiates from sibling order tools by focusing on status transitions, though it relies on an external swagger file for the full list.

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 for changing order status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., specific transition tools like orders_accept_return_order). No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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