cigchat_shop_orders_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the required scope and the HTTP endpoint, which are useful behavioral constraints. However, it does not disclose side effects, response format, or any ordering rules, leaving gaps for a create 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 that states the action, resource, endpoint, and requirement with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely under-specified. It fails to explain required inputs, the nature of the created order, or expected outcomes, making it difficult for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema covers only 62% of top-level parameters, leaving user_ns (required), note, items, tracking_no, and reference_no undescribed. The description adds no parameter guidance, so an agent cannot infer the meaning of these essential fields, especially the ambiguous user_ns.

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 ('Create') and the resource ('new order for bot user'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cigchat_shop_orders_get_info and cigchat_shop_orders_update. Including the endpoint and required scope adds further specificity.

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?

It establishes a clear context: creating an order for a bot user, and explicitly mentions the required 'Manage Flow' scope. However, it does not contrast with update/get alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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