Convert order to invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds the constraint 'draft order/basket', which clarifies the scope. However, it does not disclose what happens to the original order after conversion, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects on the order's state, so transparency is limited.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with no output schema and a single parameter, a fuller description should explain the post-conditions, such as whether the original order is marked as converted or remains in draft state, and what the tool returns (e.g., the new invoice). The current description only covers the basic transformation, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to safely use the 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?

Although the schema already describes order_id as 'Order UUID' with complete coverage, the description adds important semantic context by specifying that the order must be a 'draft order/basket'. This tells the agent which orders are valid inputs, adding value beyond the schema's basic type description.

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: 'Convert a draft order/basket into a real invoice.' The verb 'convert' and the resource 'draft order/basket' to 'invoice' are specific, and the tool is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like list_orders, get_order, and create_renewal_invoice.

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 implies usage context by specifying it applies to 'draft order/basket' only, which hints that it should be used when an order is in draft state. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the correct scenario from the wording alone.

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