post_order_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a write operation and that the order must be authenticated, but it does not disclose side effects, whether the message is visible to the buyer/seller, any order-state constraints, or what the success response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a material gap.

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?

A single eight-word sentence with zero filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word earns its place, including the 'authenticated' qualifier that scopes the operation.

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 tool is structurally simple — two flat string params, no output schema, no nested objects — so a short description is mostly sufficient. However, for a write operation with no annotations, the absence of any statement about success behavior, return value, or post-conditions leaves a clear gap that an agent would need to discover at runtime.

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 the description must compensate. It only loosely maps the parameters via the sentence structure ('a message' on 'an order'), which adds minimal relational meaning beyond the self-explanatory property names message and orderId. It provides no detail on message format, length constraints beyond minLength 1, or how orderId identifies an order.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Post a message on a marketplace order') and adds the meaningful scope qualifier 'authenticated'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_order_messages, get_orders, and edit_order, and there is no ambiguity about what action is performed.

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?

Usage context is implied by the verb 'Post' — an agent can infer it is for sending messages on orders — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the closely related sibling get_order_messages, and no exclusions (e.g., cannot message after order completion). The guidance is adequate but entirely left to inference.

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