create_purchase_order

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

The description begins with '[WRITE]' flagging it as a write operation and lists side effects: adding a record to the POS purchase order list and enabling subsequent stock-in confirmation. It also discloses the return structure, providing behavioral context beyond what a basic create would offer. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does so reasonably.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, API, return structure, side effects) and no redundant content. Each section adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded with the action tag and purpose.

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?

The description includes purpose, API endpoint, return structure, and side effects, which covers the essential aspects of a create operation. It does not document prerequisites, failure behavior, or detailed parameter constraints, but given the simple schema and presence of an output shape description, it is reasonably complete.

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 already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter, including an example object ({supplier_id, items: [{sku, quantity, cost}, ...]}), so the description adds minimal parameter-specific information. The description's mention of recording supplier purchase information aligns with the schema but does not deepen parameter understanding beyond the baseline.

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 tool's function: '建立新採購單' (create a new purchase order) and describes its purpose as recording supplier purchase information in Shopline POS. It also specifies the exact Shopline API endpoint (POST /v1/pos/purchase_orders), distinguishing it from other order tools.

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 provides context that this tool is for '記錄向供應商進貨的資訊' (recording supplier purchase information), implying its use for purchase order creation. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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