Draft Orders Update

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the required OAuth scope (write_draft_orders) and API version, which are genuinely additive auth/versioning facts, but it never says whether this is a partial merge or a full replace, nor what happens to omitted line items.

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 short lines, with the action front-loaded and the HTTP method, scope, and version on separate lines for easy scanning. Nothing is padded, though the terse style leaves little room for meaning.

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 nine-parameter nested mutation with no output schema, the definition is adequate but thin: it omits update semantics (merge vs replace), what is returned after the update, and how the draft-order lifecycle connects to the confirm sibling. The scope line partially compensates on the auth side.

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%, so every one of the nine parameters is documented in the schema itself, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the id embedded in the path template, which the schema already conveys.

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 ("Update a draft order") and names the concrete endpoint, so an agent knows exactly what object is being mutated. It is distinguishable from the draft_orders_create/get/list/delete siblings by the verb, though it does not explicitly separate itself from draft_orders_confirm, which also touches an existing draft.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus draft_orders_confirm, draft_orders_create, or orders_update, nor any prerequisites beyond the scope line. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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