Create draft order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that items must belong to published products and that this only creates a draft rather than a real order, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or side effects like customer notification.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then item semantics, then the follow-up step. No filler, though the parenthetical asides make it slightly dense.

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 10-parameter, nested-object creation tool with no output schema and only half the schema documented, the description covers the core (what it makes, how items are specified, how to finalize) but omits how the customer is identified, what region/promo/shipping parameters do, and what the tool returns. Adequate but with real gaps.

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 50% across 10 parameters, so the description must carry weight. It usefully explains item identification (variant_id or SKU of published products) and optional custom unit_price, but leaves email/customer_id, region_id, promo_codes, shipping_amount, and the address objects entirely to the schema.

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 ('Creates a draft order') plus the business context that scopes it (phone/e-mail orders, B2B). It also distinguishes itself from convert_draft_order by making clear this produces a draft, not a live order.

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?

Gives clear context for use (manual/phone/e-mail/B2B orders) and explicitly routes two dependencies: shipping options come from get_store_info and the draft is finalized with convert_draft_order. It does not state any when-not-to-use condition (e.g. don't use for storefront checkout flows), so it falls short of a 5.

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