sales_order

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond listing operations; it does not disclose side effects (e.g., inventory changes on complete/cancel), required permissions, or idempotency. No contradiction with annotations.

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 structured with a clear intro, operation list, parameter list, and return format. Every part adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity. No redundant sentences.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, multiple operations) and existence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not specify which parameters are required for each operation (e.g., create requires data, list does not), forcing the agent to infer. Error handling is mentioned minimally.

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 gives one-line explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'pk: Sales order ID', 'data: Dict of fields'), adding basic meaning. However, it lacks details like required fields for specific operations or valid enum values for 'operation', relying on the list above.

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 'Sales order lifecycle management in InvenTree' and lists all supported operations (read, write, shipment management). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like purchase_order by focusing on sales orders, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 a list of operations but no guidance on when to use which operation or when to prefer this tool over alternatives. No contextual hints like 'use list for search, create for new orders' are given, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names.

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