Orders Open

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds real context beyond them: the required write_orders OAuth scope and the API version, which is exactly the auth-needs disclosure the rubric rewards. It still doesn't say what the order's status becomes after reopening or what happens if the order isn't closed.

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?

The action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent line (HTTP endpoint, required scope, API version) carries distinct operational information with zero filler. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 state-transition tool with no output schema and a fully-described parameter, the description covers action, precondition, auth scope, and API version. The only material gap is the resulting state change and error behavior, which an agent would have to infer.

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?

There is a single parameter (`id`) with 100% schema description coverage ("Order ID"). The description adds nothing about the id format, accepted types, or lookup semantics, so the schema does all the work — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description opens with a precise verb+resource+precondition: "Re-open a closed order." That is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling tiendanube_orders_close and from tiendanube_orders_update. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 phrase "a closed order" implies a precondition (the order must currently be closed), which is useful selection guidance. However, it never states when not to use it, what to do for orders in other states, or which sibling to pick instead — the usage context is implied rather than stated.

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