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

Annotations only declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive; the description adds substantive context beyond that: changes fan out across web shop, ERP, and courier, the action is simulated first and requires one approval, and the courier leg depends on shipped status. Does not discuss partial failure or rollback across the three systems, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

One dense but readable sentence with the action front-loaded. The '[Support desk]' prefix and trailing 'Works on: Support desk' duplicate the same information and could be trimmed.

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 output schema covers return values and the approval/simulation workflow is explained, so the behavioral picture is reasonably complete. However, for a 15-parameter multi-system mutation with near-zero schema coverage, the absence of any account-parameter guidance leaves a real gap for correct invocation.

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 only 7% across 15 parameters. The description implies the address/phone fields but says nothing about the four account parameters (account, erp_account, shop_account, courier_account), thread_id, awb, or order_ref, leaving the majority of parameters undocumented in both schema and text.

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 ('propose changing the delivery address and/or phone of an order') and enumerates the three systems touched (web shop, Odoo, courier). This clearly separates it from siblings like orders_get, orders_cancel, or orders_issue_awb.

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?

Gives the operating condition ('if not shipped') and the fallback path ('when shipped' via written request on the AWB), plus the workflow constraint 'Simulated first; one approval.' It does not name alternative tools (e.g. when to prefer orders_cancel or courier_claim_open instead), so not a 5.

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