create-draft-order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says "draft" (implying a non-final, unpaid order) but never states that the draft is inert until completed, what permissions/plan are required, whether inventory is reserved, or what identifying handle is returned for later completion — significant gaps for an unannotated mutation tool with 12 parameters.

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 sentences, zero filler, with purpose and use cases front-loaded. Slightly more structure could have been gained by folding the lifecycle next-step into the second sentence, but there is no wasted prose.

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?

This is a 12-parameter, nested-object mutation with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description never says what an agent gets back (e.g., a draft order ID/GID required for complete-draft-order) or what constraints apply to lineItems beyond the 499 cap buried in the schema. For this complexity, the description is noticeably 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 83%, so the schema already documents nearly every field, including the variantId-vs-custom-line-item distinction and discount valueType. The description's mention of "custom line items, discounts, and customer association" mirrors what the schema says rather than adding new meaning, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 ("Create a draft order") plus concrete scenarios (phone/chat sales, invoicing, wholesale), which is well beyond a restatement of the name. It does not differentiate from the obvious sibling complete-draft-order or explain the create→complete lifecycle, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 listed scenarios (phone/chat, invoicing, wholesale) imply when to reach for this tool over the read-oriented order siblings. However, there is no explicit when-not, no prerequisite (e.g., customer must exist, or that a draft must later be completed via complete-draft-order), and no exclusion against other creation paths.

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