update_order

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Only the fields you pass are sent', indicating a partial update rather than full replacement. It also states the return value ({success}), providing useful behavioral context.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and groups relevant field categories. It does not waste words, and the additional clause about partial updates earns its place by conveying critical behavior.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and annotations present, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, its partial-update behavior, and the return value. The schema handles parameter details, so the description is suitably complete without over-explaining.

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 schema descriptions cover all 15 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds little per-parameter meaning. However, the phrase 'Only the fields you pass are sent' clarifies the semantics of omitted parameters (they remain unchanged), which is a useful addition more than just schema repetition.

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 action (update an order) and the scope (status, customer, delivery, comments), which distinguishes it from siblings like create_order or list_orders. The verb 'update' with a specific resource makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to modify an existing order) relative to siblings like create_order or get_order. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention conditions, but the name and scope make the usage context clear enough.

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