Order Fulfillments Create

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

Annotations already declare the write/openWorld/non-idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds genuinely non-structured context: the required write_shipping scope, API version 2025-03, and the concrete endpoint. It does not mention the customer-notification side effect implied by notify_customer or the consequences of repeating the call despite idempotentHint=false.

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, front-loaded with purpose, followed by endpoint, scope, and API version — all operationally relevant for a versioned API. Terse fragment style costs nothing in clarity, though it borders on reference-sheet terseness rather than guidance.

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 never says what a create returns (the resulting fulfillment object) or how to reference it afterwards, and it omits any note on the non-idempotent behavior flagged in annotations. For a mutation on an order record, that leaves real gaps an agent must guess at.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline applies. The description's parenthetical field list duplicates what the schema's fulfillment description already provides and adds no format, enum, or constraint detail beyond it.

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 legacy fulfillment event') and gives a concrete example ('shipped with tracking'), so an agent knows exactly what operation it performs. The 'legacy' qualifier implicitly separates it from the newer fulfillment_orders / fulfillment_tracking_events siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 word 'legacy' hints that this is the older path and that newer fulfillment tools exist, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. In a sibling list containing tiendanube_fulfillment_orders_update and tiendanube_fulfillment_tracking_events_create, the routing decision is left to inference.

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