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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, open-world, so the safety profile is known. The description usefully adds the confirmed=true guard and notes the header channel / ChannelOAuthId is resolved internally, but it does not state what state change occults (irreversibility, what 'fixed/resolved' does to the order, or side effects).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then prerequisites. Little waste, though the header/internal-resolution note is slightly cryptic and could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a destructive mutation, the description is thin on what 'fixed/resolved' entails for the order and whether the action is reversible, leaving gaps an agent would want.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'reference' is a visible order reference and that channel context resolves internally, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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: marks order lines resolved/fixed based on a visible order Reference. This is clear and actionable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as hgr_mark_order_lines_as_purchased or hgr_force_process_order_lines, so the agent can't fully disambiguate from the description alone.

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?

Implies usage (mark resolved orders from a visible reference) and enforces a precondition (confirmed=true). But it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, nor any when-not guidance against the several sibling tools that also operate on order lines.

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