update_order

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states 'Updates an order' without explaining whether updates are partial or full, consequences on existing data, permission needs, or return format. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The trailing 'etc.' is vague and slightly undermines precision, but the overall conciseness is good.

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?

For a mutation tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain expected response, update semantics (replace vs merge), error conditions, or operational context. The schema covers parameter definitions but not the behavioral envelope.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (id, note, tags, email) clearly documented. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond reiterating the fields, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Updates' with the resource 'order' and lists editable fields ('notes, tags, email'), making the core function identifiable. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like cancel_order, but the verb and scope are sufficient for basic differentiation.

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 such as cancel_order or create_draft_order. There is no mention of prerequisites, order states, or check-out scenarios, leaving the agent without decision support.

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