prepare_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool does not execute, returns an approval_token requiring human approval in live mode, and blocks delivery sells. This sufficiently covers key behavioral traits, though it omits details on validation failure responses.

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 three sentences long, with the main purpose stated upfront. Every sentence adds essential information: validation/staging, no execution, live mode behavior, and delivery sell blocking. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers tool behavior and context well but lacks parameter details and a full explanation of the return value beyond 'approval_token'. It does not clarify behavior in paper mode or the token format. Given the parameter count and no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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%, so the description should explain parameter meanings. However, it only lists the required parameters by name without adding any semantics, such as valid values for 'side' (buy/sell) or the meaning of defaults for 'product_type' and 'order_type'. This leaves the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 tool validates and stages an order without executing it, and distinguishes it from execution siblings like execute_intraday_order_after_validation. It specifies that it never executes, returns an approval_token in live mode, and blocks delivery sells, making its unique purpose explicit.

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 indicates this tool is for preparing orders that require human approval, and that delivery sells are blocked. It implies this is a prerequisite for execution. While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the context from sibling tools suggests execution counterparts, and the usage context is clear.

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