Orders Close

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, not idempotent), and the description adds real value beyond them: the required OAuth scope write_orders, the exact HTTP endpoint and method, and the clarification that "close" means archive rather than delete. It does not say whether the action is reversible via orders_open or what happens on an invalid state — a minor remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and its meaning, followed by terse endpoint, scope, and version lines. Slight boilerplate in the API-version line, but no sentence is wasted.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the essentials are covered by annotations plus the scope statement. Still missing: side effects on the order (does it affect fulfillments/payment?), error behavior when the order is not open, and whether orders_open can reverse it — all relevant given the many order-related siblings.

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?

Only one parameter (id) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The "{id}" in the HTTP path echoes the schema without adding format, type, or resolution guidance; baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ("Close (archive) an open order") and disambiguates the ambiguous word "close" with "archive". Sibling tools like tiendanube_orders_open and tiendanube_orders_cancel exist but are not named, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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?

"an open order" implies the precondition that the order must be in an open state, which is useful usage context. However, it never says what to do for a non-open order, nor does it explicitly point to tiendanube_orders_open as the inverse or tiendanube_orders_cancel as the alternative for a different outcome.

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