Fulfillment Orders Update

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the HTTP method (PATCH), the exact endpoint, the required auth scope, and the pinned API version 2025-03 — all operationally relevant facts absent from the annotations. It does not describe status-transition validation or partial-update semantics, keeping it below a 5.

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, front-loaded with the operative sentence and followed by endpoint, scope, and version metadata. No filler. The only mild inefficiency is that the title-ish first line repeats the tool name before adding the field list.

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 6-parameter mutation with a nested tracking_info object and no output schema, the description covers endpoint, auth scope, and version but says nothing about the return payload, error behavior, or how to source the fulfillment order id. Adequate to invoke safely, but reasonably more could be said given the tool's complexity.

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 the status enum fully enumerated, so the schema carries the parameter documentation and baseline 3 applies. The description restates the updatable fields but does not explain the semantics of additional_fields (the passthrough escape hatch) or how notify_customer interacts with the update.

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 (update) and resource (fulfillment orders) plus the three things that can be changed: status, tracking info, customer notification. That is concrete, but it does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as tiendanube_order_fulfillments_create or tiendanube_fulfillment_tracking_events_update, so the agent must infer the boundary from the names.

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 'Required scope: write_fulfillment_orders' line is a genuine prerequisite, and PATCH implies an existing resource, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to tiendanube_fulfillment_orders_get for obtaining the fulfillment order id. Usage is implied by the name rather than stated.

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