Create a draft order to build an order by hand before it is placed. It holds no inventory until completed, so you can review or edit it first.
Create a draft order, the way to build an order by hand before it is placed. A draft holds no inventory until it is completed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variables | Yes | The draft order to create. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond them: 'A draft holds no inventory until it is completed,' which tells the agent that creating a draft does not reserve stock. It does not cover permissions, error behavior, or what completion does, but the key consequence is disclosed.
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?
Two compact sentences, no filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the inventory caveat following as supporting context. 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?
For a single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the essential conceptual and behavioral context (what a draft is, that inventory is not held). Adding permission requirements or what happens on completion would make it fully complete, but an agent can call this correctly as written.
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% with a single parameter, and the schema description already enumerates the useful input keys (lineItems, customerId, email, note, tags, shippingAddress). The description adds nothing about input semantics, so the 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 verb (Create) and resource (draft order) and adds a conceptual gloss — building an order by hand before placement — that clarifies what a 'draft order' is. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling create tools (shopify_product_create, linear_issue_create, gmail_drafts_create), so sibling differentiation is only implied.
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 phrase 'the way to build an order by hand before it is placed' implies the usage context (assembling an order prior to checkout), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.