Update a sales order

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the trade module requirement and the PUT method, which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose that a PUT is a full replacement of the order or that omitting attachments removes them — though the schema mentions this. The added behavior is accurate but thin.

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 short and includes the endpoint line, but the opening 'Update a sales order.' is redundant with the title and the next sentence. It could be tightened without losing information. Overall it is concise and front-loaded, but not perfectly lean.

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?

This is an update operation with a complex nested body, no output schema, and many sibling tools. The description does not explain that a PUT requires the entire order object in the body, nor does it mention that the fields in SalesOrderInput are required for a full update. It also does not describe any return value or finalization behavior. The gap is significant given the importance of full-replacement semantics.

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 only parameter-related phrase in the description is 'by ID', which merely restates the schema description for the `id` parameter. It gives no additional guidance about the `body` parameter (the SalesOrderInput) or the `administration` parameter. With 67% schema coverage, the description does not compensate for the undocumented `body`, even though nested schema descriptions are rich.

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'), the resource ('sales order'), and the mechanism ('by ID'). It also includes the HTTP endpoint PUT /orders/sales/{id}, which uniquely identifies the operation among many sibling update_* tools. The repeated 'Update a sales order' does not add much, but the overall purpose is 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 implies usage by saying 'Update an existing sales order by ID' and mentions a prerequisite ('Requires the trade module to be active'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with create_sales_order or partial-update alternatives, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The guidance is present by implication rather than direct routing.

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