confirmOrder

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a real order and returns a payment link, indicating a mutation. However, it does not specify potential side effects (e.g., whether the draft is invalidated after use), error handling, or idempotency. Given the absence of annotations, more behavioral detail would be beneficial.

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 extremely concise, using two clear clauses. The purpose is front-loaded ('确认下单'), and every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (payment link) and the input parameter's origin. However, it lacks details on error scenarios or response structure. For a simple single-parameter tool, the coverage is good but not exhaustive.

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 description adds significant meaning to the single parameter 'draftId' by stating it comes from quickOrder/reorder, providing source context and implied format. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this added value is crucial for correct usage.

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 verb (确认下单/confirm order), the resource (订单/order), and the key action: creating a real order from a draft and returning a payment link. It distinguishes from sibling tools like quickOrder (which creates a draft) and cancelOrder (which cancels), making 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 provides a clear condition for calling the tool: only after user explicitly confirms ('仅在用户明确确认后调用'). It also implies this is the final step following quickOrder/reorder, giving context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, which would elevate the score to 5.

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