lower_order_quantity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral constraint (only lowering) and the zero-removal effect, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, error conditions, or idempotency. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. Every part adds value: the action, the constraint, and the edge case. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core purpose and constraints. It addresses the main behavioral nuance (only lowering). Missing: prerequisites or error handling, but sufficient for basic tool selection among many siblings.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the quantity constraint ('can only be lowered') and the special case of setting to 0 to remove, which the schema only mentions 'must be lower than current' without the removal hint.

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 it reduces the quantity of order lines, using specific verb 'reduce' and resource 'specific order lines'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_order_lines' by implying quantity reduction rather than line removal, and the 'set to 0 to remove' clarifies an edge case.

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 clear usage constraints: quantity can only be lowered, and setting to 0 removes the line. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'update_product_list_item', but the constraints are clearly stated.

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