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

With only openWorldHint in annotations, the description carries the burden and does so richly: per-provider semantics (Printful/Gelato edit in place, Printify cancels and re-creates), the resulting edit_method="recreated" and new fulfillment_external_id, and the reassurance that nothing is charged on a draft. It also names the exact error code for the non-editable case.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the draft constraint, and the provider-specific risk is placed where an agent will read it before acting. It is dense but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information; the trailing '[#f416d1]' artifact is stray noise.

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?

For a 6-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, per-provider side effects, price semantics, and error behavior, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the recreated-order case.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real value by disambiguating custom_price (per-unit retail) and shipping_cost (order-level retail the customer pays, NOT provider cost) and by stating the omit-behavior for both. Quantity and workspace are left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (add an item to a DRAFT order) and scopes it precisely against the surrounding order tools, e.g. it is not remove_order_item and not a catalog operation. The draft-only constraint further disambiguates it from order-creation tools.

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?

Clearly states when it applies ('Only works while the order is in "draft" status' before confirmation to production) and gives the failure condition (409 order_not_editable if already confirmed). It does not explicitly point at sibling alternatives such as remove_order_item or submit_order_to_fulfillment, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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