create_draft_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 simply states the fact of creation, without mentioning side effects, permissions, idempotency, or whether the draft order is instantly available or requires further processing. The agent receives no insight into the tool's behavior beyond the tautological action.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key verb and object, making it immediately clear what the tool does. This meets the highest standard for conciseness.

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?

The tool has four parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description provides no additional context beyond the bare action. It does not explain return value, error conditions, or the distinction between a draft order and a regular order. This is a clear gap for a creation tool, leaving the agent with only the schema to work from.

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 input schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, and the description adds no additional semantic nuance. Since the schema handles parameter meaning, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate for any gaps because there are none.

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 ('Creates') and the resource ('a draft order'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_order or update_order. However, it does not elaborate on what a draft order is, which could cause ambiguity in e-commerce contexts.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., create_order) would be more appropriate.

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