place_order

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the three-call protocol, automatic compensation (deletion on failure), and that the backend lacks cross-call transactions. It clearly explains what happens and what the agent should not do.

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 concise yet informative, with a front-loaded summary ('The three-call legacy protocol, wrapped with compensation') followed by clear, structured details. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema and low schema coverage, the description adequately covers the tool's complex behavior, internal protocol, compensation semantics, and limits of agent responsibility. It is complete for an agent to understand how to invoke and what 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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not provide explicit parameter descriptions. However, it implies customer_id is used for validation and items are line items inserted with sequence numbers. This adds some meaning but is not fully detailed.

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 it places an order via a three-call legacy protocol with compensation. It distinguishes from siblings like cancel_order and cleanup_incomplete_orders by explaining that cleanup is automatically handled, and it specifies the internal steps (HDR_INS, line inserts, FIN).

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 provides context for when to use the tool (for placing orders) and clarifies that cleanup is not the agent's responsibility. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like check_item_availability or get_customer_credit, but the internal details compensate.

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