create_order

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds key behavior: dry_run default true, preview behavior, commit behavior (decrement inventory). This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't mention permissions or error handling.

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 purpose, then workflow. Three sentences, each earning its place. Minor punctuation issue (space before comma) but not distracting.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. The description covers the critical dry_run behavior, default, and commit effect. For a 4-param tool with 3 required, it's mostly complete, though parameter details are sparse.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains dry_run semantics well but doesn't add meaning for contact_id, sku, or qty beyond their names. Baseline 3 is reasonable given partial compensation.

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: 'Place a sales order for a contact.' Clear what it does. Doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like check_inventory, though the dry_run workflow provides some differentiation.

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?

Explicitly describes the workflow: dry_run=true (default) returns a preview, confirm with the user, then call with dry_run=false. This is excellent when-to-use guidance and includes a recommended two-step process.

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