modx_ms2_update_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely important behavioral trait: status changes trigger ms2 status-change logic (side effects such as emails/stock). It omits other material behavior—whether the update is partial, whether unspecified fields are preserved, and what permissions are required for a mutation.

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?

One tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. The important trigger warning sits in a parenthetical rather than being surfaced more prominently, but nothing is wasted.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 75% undocumented parameters, the description does not do enough: partial-update semantics, field ID meanings, and required permissions are all left unstated.

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 only 25% (only `status` is described), so the description must compensate. It merely restates the field names (status, delivery, payment) without explaining that delivery/payment are method IDs, what `id` refers to, or whether omitted fields stay untouched.

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+resource ("Update a miniShop2 order") and names the typical fields touched (status, delivery, payment). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like modx_ms2_get_order or modx_ms2_list_orders, so the agent must infer the read/write split itself.

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?

"typically to change its status" implies the primary use case, which is helpful context. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named (e.g. use modx_ms2_get_order to read before mutating), leaving routing to inference.

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