Convert draft order

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), and the description adds value beyond them by disclosing the 'reserves stock' side effect and the required payment follow-up. It does not state what happens on failure or whether the reservation is reversible.

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?

Two short sentences, action stated first, follow-up second. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, its side effect, and the next step. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid/already-converted draft, error response), which is a small residual gap.

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?

One parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description technically carries the burden, but it says nothing about draft_order_id. The name and string type are largely self-explanatory, so this is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('turns a draft order into a regular order') so the agent knows exactly what mutation occurs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling complete_order, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this step.

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 second sentence supplies sequencing guidance by naming the follow-up tool ('Record the payment afterwards with mark_order_paid'), which tells the agent where this fits in the workflow. It still lacks an explicit when-not or a contrast against complete_order/cancel_order.

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