send_order_message

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

由於沒有 annotations，描述完全承擔了行為揭露的責任。它明確說明副作用：在買家對話收件匣新增訊息、買家即時收到通知、訊息送出後無法撤回或修改，並提供回傳結構與呼叫的 API，讓 agent 充分理解此操作的不可逆性及影響。

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?

描述以清晰標題分段（用途、API、回傳結構、副作用），目的句置於開頭，每個段落皆提供具體且有價值的資訊，無冗餘內容，易於快速掃讀與理解。

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?

作為一個帶有巢狀物件參數的寫入工具，描述完整涵蓋了副作用、回傳結構、適用情境與底層 API。雖然無輸出 schema，但已提供足夠資訊供 agent 判斷是否使用及預期結果，整體完整性高。

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?

輸入 schema 對唯一參數 message_data 有 100% 描述覆蓋，包含型別與範例，因此 schema 已承擔主要說明責任。描述本身未額外補充參數語法或格式細節，符合 baseline 3 的情境。

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?

描述以明確的動詞與資源說明工具用途：'發送與特定訂單相關的對話訊息'，並補充適用於出貨通知、客服回覆等情境。這與兄弟工具 send_shop_message 形成對比，能清楚區分這是一個針對特定訂單的訊息發送工具，而非一般店鋪訊息。

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?

描述列出具體適用場景（出貨通知、客服回覆、訂單異常說明），提供清晰的使用情境。但未明確指出何時不應使用此工具，也未提及替代工具（如 send_shop_message），因此缺少排除性指引。

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