complete_draft_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and explicitly discloses the key side effect: 'creates an Order from the draft; draft status becomes completed.' It also explains the effect of payment_pending. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or error conditions, which would make it more complete.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states purpose and side effect; the second gives parameter usage guidance. Every word 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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, side effects, and a usage nuance. It doesn't describe return values or failure cases, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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?

Input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining when to set payment_pending=true, which the schema only describes as 'If true, order is created with payment pending.' This goes beyond the schema's default-value note.

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's action: 'Complete a draft order and convert it into a real order.' It also distinguishes this from related tools (e.g., update_draft_order, send_draft_order_invoice) by explicitly mentioning the side effect of creating an Order.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (completing a draft) and provides specific guidance for the payment_pending parameter: 'Use payment_pending=true if payment not yet collected.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the use case is clear.

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