Combine two order sets into one by primary keys for the current session, resolving duplicate orders.
union two Order sets, identified by primary keys and reloaded for this session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| left | Yes | ||
| right | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does add some behavioral context by saying the items are 'identified by primary keys and reloaded for this session', which suggests a session-scoped, non-persistent operation. However, it does not disclose whether the operation mutates anything, deduplicates results, or what the return value looks like.
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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. The core verb and resource are front-loaded, and the clarifying detail about primary keys and session reloading is added without bloat.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what a caller receives after the union. It does not describe the return format, duplicate handling, or side effects, and the phrase 'reloaded for this session' is left ambiguous. The tool is simple, but important invocation-relevant detail is missing.
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. It partially does by indicating both parameters are Order sets identified by primary keys. However, it does not explicitly map 'left' and 'right' to the two sets or explain string format, duplicates, or ordering expectations.
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 operation ('union'), a specific resource ('Order sets'), and clarifies that inputs are primary keys. This clearly distinguishes union_order from sibling tools like intersect_order, subtract_order, and union_customer.
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?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as intersect_order or union_customer. The description implies a combine/merge use case but never states when-not-to-use or points to a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.