order_update_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool updates order status, optionally sends a notification email (notify_customer), and attaches an internal note (note). It does not mention whether changes are reversible or any permission requirements, but covers the key behaviors clearly.

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 begins with a clear one-line purpose, then efficiently lists all parameters with explanations. It is concise with no redundant information, and every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the purpose and all parameters adequately. However, it lacks information about what happens after the update (e.g., success response, side effects) and does not mention any prerequisites or error conditions.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which only provides titles and types. It explains order_id as 'Internal order ID', status as 'New status key' with examples and reference to order_status_types, notify_customer as 'Send a notification e-mail', and note as 'Optional internal note'. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates.

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 clearly states 'Update the status of an existing order' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'order_list' and 'order_create' by focusing on status updates, and further clarifies by listing the parameters involved.

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 directs the user to 'Use order_status_types() to see available values' for the status parameter, providing explicit guidance on valid inputs. It implies when to use this tool (status updates) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other order modifications.

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