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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds material context beyond them: a mandatory merchant confirmation step naming the order, irreversibility ('nothing here can undo it'), the upsert-on-repeat behavior, and the no-op outcome for companies with no supported platform connected. That is exactly the pre-write risk disclosure an agent needs.

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 action, then scope, then the safety gate, then the exclusions and the edge case. Every sentence carries a distinct obligation (confirm, irreversibility, no-op) with no restatement of the name or title.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must set expectations about results — and it does, via the create/update lifecycle and the no-op case for unconnected platforms. Combined with the confirmation and irreversibility warnings, an agent has everything required to invoke this write safely.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents that orderId comes from get_orders and is not a receipt number. The description adds only the indirect hint that the order should be named during confirmation; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 ('Push one order to the company's connected online store (WooCommerce)') and goes further by spelling out the upsert lifecycle: created on first call, updated afterwards, notes synced. This distinguishes it from hub_sync_refund_to_ecommerce and the read-only hub_get_order siblings without needing to open 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?

Explicit when: 'Use ONLY when the merchant says an order is missing from or stale in their online store', with a quoted merchant utterance as a concrete trigger. Explicit when-not: 'It changes NOTHING in Final POS — it is not a way to change status, cancel an order or refund anything', which also steers refund cases toward hub_sync_refund_to_ecommerce.

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