Adjust order details such as total price and customer operator notes by order ID, enabling agents to maintain accurate 3D printing studio records.
Update order details such as total price and customer operator notes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orderId | Yes | Unique numeric ID of the order | |
| totalPrice | No | Adjusted total order price in studio currency (e.g. '350.00') | |
| customerNotes | No | Operator internal notes or preferences for this customer |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It says only that details can be updated; it does not disclose required permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing values, or whether any side effects occur. Naming the updatable fields is useful but falls well short of full behavioral disclosure.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the task, though the hedge 'such as' slightly weakens precision about the full field set. Still efficient and well structured.
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 is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover behavior and usage. It omits permissions, side effects, and when to prefer it over siblings like update_order_status or cancel_order. For a write operation, this leaves meaningful 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 100%, so the schema already documents orderId, totalPrice, and customerNotes thoroughly. The description adds only examples of two fields and does not clarify format, validation, or required status beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a clear verb (update) and resource (order details) and names two updatable fields, total price and customer notes. It implicitly distinguishes itself from update_order_status by focusing on order fields rather than status, though it does not explicitly call out that sibling. Clear enough to identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternatives exist. The sibling set includes update_order_status, cancel_order, and create_order, but the description never routes the agent among them. It states what can be changed but not the conditions or prerequisites for doing so.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.