order_catalog_item

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already indicate a non-destructive write operation. The description adds 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which is a behavioral constraint. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., creating a service request) or error conditions. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds minimal but useful context.

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, clear sentence that immediately communicates the action and a key requirement. There is no redundant or extraneous information. It is optimally concise and front-loaded.

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 the tool has no output schema and moderate complexity (3 parameters, nested object), the description should compensate by explaining what happens after ordering (e.g., does it return a request sys_id?) and potential error conditions. It only mentions a prerequisite, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters (sys_id, quantity, variables) are already documented. The description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. For example, it does not explain valid variable formats or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Order') and the resource ('service catalog item'). It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like 'create_catalog_item' (which creates the item definition) and 'search_catalog'. However, it does not explicitly clarify that ordering results in a request, which is a minor gap.

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 includes a prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which provides useful context. However, it does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'create_catalog_item' for item definition vs. ordering from a catalog). No comparison or usage scenarios are mentioned.

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