order-close-open

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the concrete side effects: closing marks all items fulfilled and finances complete, opening reverses a closed order. It stops short of permissions, restrictions on reopening (e.g. time windows), or idempotency of closing an already-closed order.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the tool's scope front-loaded before the per-action semantics. 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 two-parameter state-transition tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, both action semantics, and side effects adequately. It lacks error/precondition behavior (permissions, whether reopening is always allowed), which an agent would need before calling blindly.

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% and the enum is documented, so the schema already does the heavy lifting; the description's explanation of close vs. open adds some meaning to the 'action' values. It adds nothing about orderId format or edge cases such as acting on an already-closed order, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Close or reopen an order') and immediately defines what each action does to the order's items and finances. It is distinguishable from state-changing siblings like order-cancel or order-mark-as-paid by implication, but never names them.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call it when you want to close or reopen an order. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over order-cancel or complete-draft-order, and no preconditions (e.g. whether an order must be paid/fulfilled before closing).

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