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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description earns credit by disclosing the state-machine gates that determine whether the mutation is even legal — information an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema. It does not mention possible fees, loss of the original slot, or any confirmation/irreversibility detail, which is a meaningful gap for a destructive operation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the eligibility gates and call requirements in order of decision-making. No filler or restatement of the 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what changes, when it is permitted, and what inputs are mandatory, which is enough to call it correctly. What remains unstated is the outcome surface — fees, whether the old window is released, and what a successful response contains.

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 the schema baseline is 3; the description adds a genuine cross-parameter constraint not encoded in the schema ('Pass at least one leg', since only orderCode is required) and restates the email requirement in conditional form. That extra validation logic is real value beyond the field-level 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?

States a precise verb ('Move') plus the exact resources affected (pickup date/window, delivery date/window, or both) on an existing order. This cleanly separates it from cancel_order, track_order, and the booking tools that create rather than modify orders.

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 concrete eligibility rules per leg: pickup only in SCHEDULED or PICKUP_ASSIGNED, delivery any time before the driver is en route, plus the identity requirement ('Requires order code + email') and 'Pass at least one leg.' It lacks explicit routing to an alternative when rescheduling is no longer permitted (e.g. cancel_order or report_issue), so it stops just short of a 5.

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