send_paper_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it declares mutability ('Mutating'), a protection/enablement gate ('protected and disabled by default'), and the outcome space (approval plus acknowledged/refused/unknown send state). It does not explain what the 'hold' step does operationally or whether a refused order can be retried, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the return contract and safety profile. No filler, though the safety profile ('Mutating, protected and disabled by default') is compressed to the point of being terse relative to its importance.

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?

For a 9-parameter, nested-object mutation with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers mode scoping, the alternative tool, the mutation/enablement profile, and the return outcome shape. Remaining gaps (hold semantics, retry behavior after refusal) are minor given the schema and output schema depth.

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%, including the deeply nested destination.route venue-specific requirements, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource ('an order to a paper venue') and names the sibling it differs from ('send_live_order is the live counterpart'), so the paper/live split is unambiguous. The 'Check, hold and send' phrasing is slightly murky about whether the tool performs pre-checks, a hold step, or the send itself, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Explicitly points to send_live_order as the live-mode alternative, and 'protected and disabled by default' signals an enablement prerequisite before calling. It offers no guidance on how this differs from other order-submission siblings (submit_order, check_order, confirm_execution), leaving that inference to the agent.

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