⚠️ Orders: Chestny Znak codes

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

Annotations provide minimal behavioral info (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). Description adds valuable context: it's a write operation that stores codes, returns per-item results, has a max limit, and does not change order status. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage, no fluff. Could be slightly more compact, but still effectively conveys essential information.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, description covers purpose, usage, constraints, and response structure adequately. Missing specific error handling details, but complete enough for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds useful context about dryRun (safe preview) and idempotencyKey (duplicate protection). For markings, it summarizes structure but doesn't add meaning beyond schema. Overall, description enhances parameter understanding.

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 tool submits 'Chestny Znak' marking codes for items in an order, distinguishes it from status transitions, and specifies it's a write operation. The verb 'submits' and resource 'marking codes' are specific, and it correctly differentiates from siblings like orders_apply_transition.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (when order has setMarkings action) and what not to confuse it with (orders_apply_transition). Also specifies maximum 50 marking records, providing clear usage boundaries.

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