update_draft_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the side effect of modifying draft order fields and the status restriction, but omits other behavioral nuances such as error handling, permission requirements, or the fact that line_items replaces all existing items (though that is in the schema).

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences that state the primary action, the side effect, and a key restriction. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: status restriction and mutation side effect. The full parameter details are in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them. It is sufficiently complete for an update operation.

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 100%, so the schema provides full parameter semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-level context, which is acceptable but also the reason for a baseline score of 3.

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 purpose: updating a draft order, with a specific status constraint ('open' status). It also distinguishes itself from related draft order tools by explicitly stating that completed or cancelled drafts cannot be updated.

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 a clear usage condition (only 'open' drafts) and an exclusion ('cannot update completed or cancelled drafts'). It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.

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