wafle_orders_create

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

Annotation Contradiction: the annotations declare idempotentHint=false, yet the description states 'Idempotency-Key header is auto-set; safe to retry on transient errors,' which directly contradicts the non-idempotent hint. Per the rubric, this contradiction forces a score of 1. Beyond the contradiction, the description does add some useful context (retry safety, snake_case convention), but the contradiction dominates.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage, and no wasted words. The convention pointer and retry-safety note add genuine value without bloat.

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?

This is a complex create tool with 8 parameters and nested objects, no output schema, and low schema coverage. The description omits return value/response format, auth requirements, error behavior, and full parameter semantics. It provides useful usage context and retry safety, but not enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly in all cases.

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 description coverage is only 38%, so the description needed to compensate, but it only gives a high-level structural hint ('items[]+payment_method+gateway_id') and points to an external docs file. It does not explain key parameters like customer, shipping, metadata, coupon_code, or value formats, leaving significant gaps in 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 specific action ('Manually create an order') and resource, and distinguishes this tool from sibling order tools by positioning it as a manual/back-office operation. The explicit 'Use only for migrations or telephone sales' sharpens the purpose and prevents confusion with storefront-driven order flows.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use only for migrations or telephone sales') and an explicit when-not-to-use exclusion ('normal orders flow from the storefront'). This is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate, even without naming an alternative MCP tool.

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