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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the description properly carries the burden and adds a crucial behavioral precondition (the order must not have reached the fulfillment provider) and the resulting state transition to pending. It stops short of describing permission requirements or failure behavior, but the key gating constraint is disclosed.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences that each carry information (effect, precondition, motivation). The trailing formatting artifact '[#1d050e]' is noise that slightly mars an otherwise clean structure.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, precondition, and intent. It doesn't address error semantics when the precondition fails, which is the only meaningful remaining gap.

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 100% — order_uuid and workspace are already documented in-schema (including where to obtain the uuid elsewhere) — and the description adds nothing parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does all the work.

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 and resource ('Revert an approved order back to pending') plus the resulting state, which lets an agent distinguish it from approve_order and hold_order without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names the originating action it undoes ('undo an approve_order that was done too early') and states the hard exclusion ('Only works if the order has NOT yet been submitted to the fulfillment provider'), so both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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