Update order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The term 'merge' is genuinely useful because it discloses that the operation patches/merges fields rather than replacing the whole order. However, it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or response behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loads the core action and resource. It contains no wasted words, but it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than efficient completeness.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a free-form fields object, this description is not sufficient for an agent to call the tool confidently. It leaves unclear what fields are supported, what a successful update returns, and what error or authorization behavior to expect.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only adds the word 'merge' and the phrase 'order fields.' It does not explain what fields are valid, how the fields object should be structured, or what orderId represents beyond the parameter name. The schema's bare object type provides little help.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Update order fields') and adds the merge qualifier, making it clear this is a partial-modification tool rather than a create or retrieval operation. This differentiates it from siblings like gambot_create_order and gambot_get_order, and resource naming separates it from other update_* tools.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gambot_create_order, gambot_get_order, or other update tools. The word 'merge' implies an existing order, but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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