create_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, reversibility, or impact on customer data—important for a creation tool with client binding.

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, focused sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, but it is slightly under-specified for a complex tool—though that is more relevant to contextual completeness than conciseness.

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 7 parameters, 3 required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how customer binding works, what constitutes a valid order, or any constraints or prerequisites. An agent would lack critical context to use it correctly.

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 every parameter has a description. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable per the baseline. However, it doesn't synthesize how parameters relate (e.g., which customer fields are optional vs. required for binding), leaving some semantic gaps that the schema alone already mostly fills.

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 (creating an order) and the resource (order in Mindbox), plus the distinguishing detail of binding to a customer. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_customer or update_customer, which operate on different resources.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions for choosing create_order over run_operation or update_customer, nor any exclusions. The description is purely declarative.

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