create_order

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

The annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by disclosing that a customer may be created inline (side effect) and by specifying the return value shape {success, id, order?}. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences, each earning its place. The first gives the primary purpose, the second covers customer handling and the return format. No fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

With 13 parameters but no output schema, the description provides key routing information (customer linking options) and the return structure. The schema sufficiently describes individual parameters, and the description fills the main decision gap without overwhelming the agent. It could mention delivery-related parameters but that is adequately covered in the schema.

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 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the relationship between customer_id/customer_external_id and the inline name/phone/email parameters, clarifying mutual exclusivity and when to use each. This goes beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 creates an order with line items and delivery, using the specific verb 'create' and resource 'order'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like update_order and list_orders by focusing on creation, and differentiates from create_customer by mentioning inline customer creation as part of order creation.

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 clear usage context by explaining the two ways to handle customers: linking an existing one via customer_id/customer_external_id or passing first_name and contact details to create one inline. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, the guidance on customer linking gives practical usage direction beyond a simple imperative.

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