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

The annotations already disclose destructive=true, readOnly=false, and idempotent=false. The description adds useful context beyond that: it changes eligible order lines to the manually purchased state, returns refreshed order data, requires confirmation, and resolves the channel header internally. It does not detail side effects or reversibility beyond the annotation.

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?

The description is somewhat bloated with meta framing, functional documentation labels, and search terms. The purpose is not fully front-loaded, and some sentences, such as 'This is an explicit tool with a fixed endpoint; it is not a generic endpoint caller,' add little beyond the tool name.

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?

Considering the mutation annotations, full schema coverage, and existing output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers the action, confirmation requirement, body request type, main field, and output behavior. It could be improved by distinguishing the tool from similar siblings.

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, but the description adds meaning by naming OrderLineIds as the main body field and clarifying that channelOAuthId is resolved internally and confirmed must be true. It does not explain body field formats or constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: it records exact existing order lines as manually purchased in HGR, and identifies the HGRWeb Mark as Purchased action. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from near-identical siblings such as hgr_manually_dispatch_order_lines or hgr_mark_order_lines_as_purchased.

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?

It gives a clear condition: use only after the user confirms the real supplier order was placed manually, and requires confirmed=true before execution. It omits explicit when-not guidance and does not name alternative sibling tools for overlapping scenarios.

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