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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: preview mode unless confirm=true, and that closing is not directly reversible (remains in Closed state). This adds value beyond the schema, though it could specify that the frame order must be in Open state.

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, each serving a distinct purpose (action, preview behavior, irreversibility). Front-loaded with the primary action, no filler or redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, preview/confirm behavior, and irreversibility, but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., order must be Open), handling of existing invoices, and idempotency. Without an output schema, more context on the preview response would be beneficial.

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 clarifies the confirm parameter's role (preview vs. actual action), but adds no extra meaning for frame_order_id or idempotency_key beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action 'Close an Open frame order' with the specific consequence 'so no new invoices may link to it'. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_frame_order (permanent removal) and update_frame_order by specifying a dedicated state transition.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_frame_order, update_frame_order). The description implies usage for stopping new invoice linking but does not provide exclusion criteria or trade-offs.

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