update_order_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful behavior about optional parameters (None means 'keep unchanged'), but it does not disclose other important traits such as behavior when no matching name is found, whether it updates one or multiple orders, or error handling. This is adequate but incomplete.

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 two sentences: the first gives the purpose, the second adds crucial behavior about optional parameters. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence 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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists. The description covers the core behavior and the None semantics, but lacks details about edge cases (e.g., multiple matches), which fields are updatable, and how to use 'spec'. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 must compensate. It explains the general optionality semantics (None means no change), but it does not explain what each parameter (spec, topping, drink_name) actually represents. The parameter meanings remain largely ambiguous, especially 'spec', leaving the agent guessing.

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: 'modify order content based on name'. This is a specific verb+resource+scope (by name), and it distinguishes from siblings like update_drink_order (likely by ID) and delete_order_by_name (delete vs update).

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 how to use the tool, especially the optional parameters to handle 'the rest unchanged' scenario. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the naming and phrasing imply using it when you want to update an order by customer name, which differentiates it from sibling tools.

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