Order card inventory (BILLABLE)

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context: billability in live mode, need for confirmation_token, and elicitation condition. No contradiction with annotations.

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 action stated first. It is clear and avoids unnecessary detail, though the elicitation part could be more concise.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description covers the key aspects (billing, token requirement, bulk elicitation). However, it omits details about test mode behavior and expected return value, which are needed for full 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., mentions confirmation_token requirement and elicitation condition related to quantity). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Commit a card-inventory order' with the verb 'commit' and resource 'card inventory'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lob_card_orders_preview by emphasizing the finalization and billing aspect.

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 specifies the prerequisite of a confirmation_token from lob_card_orders_preview and notes the elicitation condition for bulk orders. It implies when to use (after preview) but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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