Confirm orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavioral effect (status change) and bulk capability, but lacks details on idempotency, error handling, permissions, or reversibility. This is a minimum viable disclosure but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action and state transition. No wasted words; it is concise and well-structured.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential usage context (state transition). However, it omits potential side effects, prerequisites, or behavior on already-confirmed orders, and it doesn't differentiate from overlapping sibling tools like rms_update_sub_status. Adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only states 'バルク対応' (bulk support), which merely echoes the array type already in the schema. It does not explain what constitutes an order number, format constraints, or semantics beyond bulk, leaving the parameter underspecified.

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 action: '受注確認' (order confirmation) with a specific state transition from '注文確認待ち' (waiting for order confirmation) to '楽天処理中' (Rakuten processing). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rms_cancel_order or rms_update_sub_status by specifying the exact workflow step.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (when orders are in the waiting-for-confirmation state and need to proceed to processing) and mentions bulk support. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, stopping short of a 5.

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