update_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the partial-update behavior, which is important for understanding that only provided fields change. However, it does not mention error handling, side effects, authorization, or whether the updated order is returned. The partial update note adds some value, but more disclosure would be expected 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 with no filler or redundant restatements. It is front-loaded with the core action and key qualifier ('partial update'). Every word contributes value, achieving high conciseness.

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?

For a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description plus the high-coverage schema are largely sufficient. It answers what the tool does, how it works (partial update), and what arguments are needed. The absence of annotations and lack of info about return values or error conditions are minor gaps, but the overall context is adequate for a CRUD-style tool.

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 100%: both `id` and `data` have descriptions. The `data` parameter description lists common fields (status, paymentStatus, fulfillmentStatus, notes, tags), which is helpful. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 the verb ('Update'), the resource ('order'), and the scope ('by id (partial update)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_order or update_product, and the 'partial update' qualifier signals PATCH-style semantics rather than full replacement.

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 implies usage: use this when you need to modify an existing order. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over other tools, mention prerequisites (e.g., order must exist), or exclude scenarios like creating orders. No alternatives are named, but the purpose is clear enough that a model can infer basic usage.

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