Plan Order Fulfillment

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool 'creates a staged operation' and that it 'must be previewed and executed', which clarifies the side effect (creating a plan) and the required follow-up steps. This complements the annotations without contradicting them, though it does not detail other behavioral traits like authentication or failure modes.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second explains the crucial planning-step behavior. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the presence of annotations, and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential workflow context. It explains the staged nature and the need for preview/execute, which is key. However, since there is no output schema, the description doesn't mention what the plan operation returns (e.g., an operation ID), leaving a small gap in expected response behavior.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all 7 parameters, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already contains, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Plan' with a clear resource 'order fulfillment', and explicitly states it creates a staged operation that must be previewed and executed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like order_fulfill_preview and order_fulfill_execute, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies the workflow: this tool creates a plan that must be followed by preview and execute steps. It gives context that this is the initial planning step, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tool names reinforce the context, but explicit exclusion is missing.

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