execute_archive_order

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, which signals a mutating action. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that this is an irreversible commit requiring explicit user confirmation and safe retry with an idempotency_key. However, it does not explicitly disclose the financial impact or cancellation policy beyond 'place an order,' and the mention of idempotency_key is not backed by an actual parameter in the schema.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by preconditions in a numbered list and a strong usage warning. Every sentence adds value and the structure makes it easy to scan. No redundant content.

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 description covers the approval flow and preconditions, which is essential for a committed order tool. However, it does not explain what the agent should expect after execution (e.g., order ID, status) and, more importantly, the mismatched parameters (quote_id, idempotency_key) create a gap between the stated context and the actual schema. With no output schema, the description should at least align with the input contract, which it fails to do.

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?

Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the tool description introduces parameters (quote_id, idempotency_key) that do not exist in the input schema. This can mislead the agent into thinking it must provide fields that are not accepted. The description does not add useful meaning to the actual parameters (archive_id, aoi, label, user_confirmed) beyond what the schema already provides, and the mismatch actively harms parameter understanding.

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 action: 'Place an archive order using a confirmed quote.' This distinguishes it from quote_archive_order (which creates a quote) and execute_tasking_order (which places a tasking order). However, the mention of 'quote_id' is confusing because the input schema does not include a quote_id parameter, slightly muddying the purpose.

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 explicit preconditions and usage boundaries: a valid quote_id is required, user confirmation is mandatory, and an idempotency_key is needed for retries. It explicitly states 'Do NOT call this tool autonomously — always wait for user confirmation,' and references 'quote_archive_order' as the source of the quote. This gives excellent when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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