odoo_create_sale_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description must shoulder the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create', which indicates mutation, but does not explain what happens on success (e.g., returns the order ID), whether it is idempotent, or if it requires specific permissions. It also does not disclose side effects such as order confirmation or inventory changes. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence of 14 words, which is highly concise and front-loaded with the primary action. There is no extraneous information, and every word contributes to the core purpose. This is an example of efficient, effective brevity.

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 that the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. An agent would need to know the meaning of each parameter, the expected return value, and any prerequisites (e.g., customer existence). The description covers only the broad purpose intervene, leaving many operational details unanswered.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. However, the description explicitly mentions 'line items', which clarifies the 'lines' parameter structure somewhat. It also says 'for a customer', which hints at 'partnerName'. But it does not describe 'reference' or 'partnerEmail', leaving those ambiguous. Given the 0% coverage, the description does provide some semantic value but not enough to fully compensate.

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 clear verb ('Create') and resource ('sale order in Odoo') and mentions 'for a customer with line items', which gives a basic sense of scope. It does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like odoo_search_read or odoo_get_stock_level, but those are clearly different operations (reading vs. creating). The description is not tautological and provides a useful one-liner.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not say to use this when creating a sale order, or to use odoo_search_read to check existing customers. The description implies a use case (creating a sale order) but lacks explicit context or exclusions. It could have mentioned that it is for sales transactions, not other Odoo models.

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