Place an order

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds the context that makes destructiveness concrete: the price leaves their wallet and nothing is charged without user acceptance. That is meaningful beyond the annotations, though it doesn't address wallet-balance failure modes or what state the created order starts in.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the mechanic (price leaves wallet), then the safety constraint (confirmation required). No sentence is redundant.

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 9-parameter, money-spending mutation with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the cost consequence, the price source, and the confirmation gate. It leaves gaps on wallet insufficiency and on the relationship to the approve/cancel siblings, but the core decision-making information is present.

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 coverage is 78%, so most parameters are self-documented, but the description adds real workflow semantics absent from the schema: expectedPrice must be the exact value growwer_estimate_order returned. That connects two tools' parameters in a way the schema alone cannot.

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 ('places the order') and resource ('an article or a link addition on a catalogue media') and ties it to a project, which separates it cleanly from read siblings like growwer_get_order and growwer_list_orders. It does not explicitly contrast with growwer_approve_order or growwer_cancel_order, so the lifecycle position is only implied.

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?

Clearly states the triggering condition ('when the user has decided to buy') and the interaction precondition ('the user is asked to confirm the purchase first, and nothing is charged unless they accept'). It also names growwer_estimate_order as the source of expectedPrice, establishing the required call order, but gives no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. when to approve or cancel instead).

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