complete-draft-order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It hints at the state change (draft becomes a real order) but says nothing about irreversibility, required scopes, what happens to payment when no gateway is passed, whether inventory is reserved, or side effects like order confirmation. A finalization mutation tool needs more than this.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, with no filler or repetition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the description omits too much: what is returned (presumably the created order), failure modes (draft already invoiced, missing inventory), and irreversible consequences. The schema covers inputs, but the behavioral contract is under-specified.

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 100%, with both parameters documented including a GID example format, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only "optionally specify a payment gateway", which the schema already conveys via the empty required list and "(optional)" note.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Complete a draft order") and adds the concrete effect ("converting it into a real order"), so an agent can predict the outcome without opening the schema. It does not name sibling tools such as create-draft-order or order-mark-as-paid, so differentiation is left implicit.

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 statement of when to use this versus the draft-order siblings or when not to (e.g. an already-completed order, an unpaid draft). "Optionally specify a payment gateway" is a parameter remark, not usage guidance.

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