Set order marking codes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses atomicity, the rejection of the whole request if any code fails, the null-to-remove behavior, and the requirement to include the crypto tail. This is unusually transparent for a mutation tool.

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 with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a critical constraint: item sourcing, null-for-removal, and atomicity.

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?

The description gives what an agent needs to call the tool correctly: resource, ID source, parameter semantics, null behavior, and atomicity. It omits only coarse details like authorization expectations and response format, but no output schema exists, and those gaps are minor for this operation.

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 already documents the parameters at 100% coverage, including null semantics and the source of item IDs. The description adds useful reinforcement: each item must take exactly one code and failures invalidate everything. This exceeds the baseline without duplicating everything verbatim.

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 names a specific verb and resource: writing or removing Chestny ZNAK marking codes on order items. It clearly distinguishes itself from the many order status and product-management siblings because it is the only tool about marking codes.

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?

It provides clear operational guidance: item IDs come from get_order under delivery_chunks[].items[].id, null removes an existing code, and one code per order item. It does not explicitly name a when-not-to-use sibling, but no sibling serves this exact function, so the guidance is sufficient.

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