gc_create_order

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: immediate creation with dryRun=false, zero-ruble offers grant free access, and training groups behavior. However, it omits details on reversibility, permissions, or rate limits.

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 relatively concise with front-loaded purpose. It uses clear separators like ⚠️ for warnings. However, it could be slightly more compact by combining related statements.

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 output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers the core functionality but lacks information about return values, error handling, or required permissions. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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%, and the description adds context beyond the schema, such as email must exist, offerIds reference gc_find_offers, and dryRun warnings. The extra details enhance understanding without fully compensating for missing output schema.

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 tool creates an order from offers and grants access via purchase, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gc_refund_order or gc_find_orders. It also explains special cases like zero-ruble comp-offers and the behavior for training groups.

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 does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or trade-offs with sibling tools like gc_add_to_groups or gc_copy_access.

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