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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is carried by structured data. The description adds only an internal channel-resolution note and restates the confirmed requirement from the schema; it says nothing about irreversibility, side effects on order state, or failure behavior for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation.

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, zero filler, with the action and the mandatory precondition front-loaded. It could be tightened only slightly, e.g. by folding the channel note into a single clause.

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 need not be explained. For a destructive, non-idempotent order mutation, though, the description omits what state change results and how it differs from the force/manual siblings, leaving a real gap in call-time decision-making.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'orders resolved from visible order Reference' adds mild context for the optional reference parameter but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Starts') and a resource ('normal processing for orders'), and 'normal' faintly contrasts with the sibling hgr_force_process_order_lines, but the phrase 'starts normal processing' is vague about what processing actually entails. The sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated, so it lands at minimum-viable rather than clear.

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?

The confirmed=true prerequisite gives a usage condition, and 'resolved from visible order Reference' implies the preconditions. However, it never says when to choose this over hgr_force_process_order_lines, hgr_manually_dispatch_order_lines, or hgr_stop_order_lines — all closely related siblings — leaving the routing decision to inference.

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