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

Annotations only flag destructive/non-idempotent/open-world; the description goes far beyond by naming the side effects (status e-mails, stock handling, plugin hooks), the special refund-recording behavior of 'refunded', the unconditional duplicate-note behavior even when the status is already set, the absence of an undo point, and the permission requirement. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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-loads the core action and its scope in the first clause, and nearly every clause carries information. But it is a single dense run-on paragraph with stacked parentheticals, which makes it slower to scan than a short bulleted structure would be.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers return payload (updated, id, status, status_unchanged), the not-found error case, permissions, and side effects. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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, and the description genuinely adds value on top: it explains that 'refunded' as a status value triggers an actual full refund of what remains unrefunded, and that the note is written on every call that carries one regardless of status change. These are value-level semantics the schema does not convey.

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 concrete verb and resource plus scope: 'set one order to one of the statuses this shop knows.' The word 'one' plus the enumerated values make it immediately distinguishable from the bulk-status sibling without opening any 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?

Gives clear preconditions (requires WooCommerce, needs manage_woocommerce) and an explicit failure mode (unknown status is refused with the list of known ones). It implies single-order scope rather than naming wp_bulk_update_status as the alternative, so the exclusion is inferable rather than stated.

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