boond_orders_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that an order is updated but does not describe mutation semantics, required identifier handling, error behavior, or response details. The description adds little beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 short sentence with no filler, so it is concise in length. However, it is under-specified rather than elegantly informative. It conveys the core operation and resource but sacrifices useful detail, making it closer to a placeholder statement.

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 five parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is far from complete. It omits return value expectations, whether all fields are replaceable, required ID constraints, and what happens on failure. An agent would need to inspect the schema or API docs to use this tool confidently.

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%, and the description does not mention any parameters or explain their semantics. While parameter names like total, status, companyId, and projectId are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema. The enum on status provides some guidance, but the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action ('Update') on a clear resource ('an existing order'), which distinguishes it from search/get/create siblings at a basic level. It is not a tautology and names the specific resource. However, it gives no detail about what an update entails beyond the verb.

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 like boond_orders_create or boond_orders_get. The description implies 'update an existing order' but does not mention whether it supports partial updates, requires an existing ID, or has any prerequisites. The context is left entirely to inference.

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