confirm_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the state requirement ('draft/sent state'), which adds some context, but fails to cover critical aspects like permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, side effects, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The Args section is clear but could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, though the formatting with indentation might slightly affect readability.

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 tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and only one parameter with good semantic coverage in the description, the description is moderately complete. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., confirmation effects, error cases) to be fully adequate.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics for the single parameter: 'order_id: The sale order ID to confirm (must be in draft/sent state)'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well by explaining what the parameter represents and its constraints. However, it doesn't detail format or validation rules beyond the state requirement.

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: 'Confirm a quotation, turning it into a sale order.' It specifies the verb ('confirm') and resource ('quotation'), and indicates the outcome ('sale order'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_my_quotations' or 'get_order_details', which reduces the score from a perfect 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?

The description provides implied usage guidance by mentioning the prerequisite state ('must be in draft/sent state'), which helps indicate when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., when not to use it or what other tools might be relevant) and doesn't compare to siblings like 'update_record' or 'create_record', leaving some ambiguity.

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