Update order remarks

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

The description discloses a behavioral trait: the remarks are shown to the buyer, which is important context. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it omits other behavioral details such as whether remarks are overwritten, length limits, or side effects. The buyer-visible note earns some credit, but the overall disclosure is limited.

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 concise sentence in Japanese that front-loads the action and includes one useful qualifier. No redundant words or unnecessary details. It is efficient and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and any parameter explanations, the description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior. It covers the basic purpose but not operational context like required order state, input formats, or expected response. This is more than a complete miss but still insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter information. It does not explain that order_number is the order identifier or that remarks is the text to update. The agent must rely solely on the parameter names, which offer minimal meaning. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states the tool updates remark information (備考情報更新), with the parenthetical clarifying these are remarks displayed to the buyer (購入者に表示される備考). This is a clear verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from similar tools like rms_update_memo, which likely handles internal memos. However, it is somewhat tautological—'update remarks' followed by a definition of remarks—but the buyer-visible qualifier adds meaningful 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions such as order status, or contrast with rms_update_memo or rms_update_sub_status. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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