yearning_audit_order

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. Description adds that agree at final step executes SQL and explicitly warns about data changes, providing useful context beyond 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?

Description is efficient, three sentences with clear front-loading of actions. No extraneous information.

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?

Tool has 7 sub-parameters and an output schema exists, but description lacks details on how to obtain work_id, source_id, and the purpose of delay and response_format. Incomplete for effective use.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'flag' as step number and 'reason' as required for reject, but omits work_id, source_id, delay, response_format. Insufficient detail given the 1-parameter nested object with multiple subfields.

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?

Description clearly states tool audits an order with actions agree/reject/undo, and specifies that 'agree' triggers SQL execution at final step. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'yearning_audit_orders' (plural), but the purpose is sufficiently specific.

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?

Description advises using yearning_order_timeline to confirm flag and notes reject requires reason. It warns about data changes but does not specify when not to use this tool or provide alternatives.

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