Orders Update

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

Annotations already declare that this is not read-only, is idempotent, is open-world, and is not destructive. The description adds useful context by naming the PUT endpoint and the required write_orders scope, but it does not explain side effects, unspecified-field behavior, or status-change implications.

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 description is short, front-loaded, and free of waste. It states the action first, then endpoint, scope, and API version in compact lines.

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?

The description plus annotations and complete schema provide enough to call the tool correctly. The main omission is sibling routing guidance, especially around status updates versus tiendanube_orders_open, tiendanube_orders_close, and tiendanube_orders_cancel.

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%, so the schema itself documents all five parameters, including the status enum and the additional_fields merge behavior. The description names three updatable fields but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: update an order's owner_note, status, or gateway_link. That is clear, but it does not distinguish this generic update from specialized siblings like tiendanube_orders_open, tiendanube_orders_close, and tiendanube_orders_cancel, which also affect order status.

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 description gives the required scope and HTTP endpoint but no guidance on when to use this tool versus the specialized order status tools. An agent must infer that this tool handles note/link/status updates while siblings handle specific status transitions.

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