Draft Orders Create

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

Annotations already say this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the returned checkout_url that can be shared with a buyer, plus the HTTP route, scope, and API version. It stops short of saying whether draft creation reserves stock or affects inventory, which matters for a mutation.

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?

Four compact lines with the purpose and the key return value front-loaded, followed by compact metadata. No sentence is filler and the structure makes scanning easy.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the one return field that matters (checkout_url). Combined with full schema coverage for eight nested parameters, an agent has enough to call it, though behavior on partial bodies (no required fields) and error handling go unmentioned.

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% and all eight parameters (products, shipping, discount, contact fields, additional_fields) are documented inline, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, required combinations, or the nested body shapes beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a draft order") and adds the notable outcome that the response carries a checkout_url. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from tiendanube_draft_orders_confirm or tiendanube_orders_create, but the verb+resource pair is unambiguous on its own.

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 gives a real prerequisite ("Required scope: write_draft_orders"), which is genuinely useful for an agent checking permissions. It offers no guidance, however, on when to create a draft order rather than a direct order via tiendanube_orders_create, nor on the relationship to the confirm sibling, leaving the choice to inference.

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