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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent, non-readonly. The description adds genuinely non-derivable detail: channel/ChannelOAuthId is resolved internally from headers, dual confirmation flags are gated on specific change categories, and secret fields are redacted in the response. Missing: whether overwriting replaces or merges the existing configuration, which matters for a destructive save.

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 dense sentences covering action, scope, prerequisites, and response handling, with the most important constraint (destructive dual confirmation) placed early. 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 destructive, open-world mutation with an output schema present, the description covers scope, confirmation gating, and response redaction adequately. The main remaining gap is replace-vs-merge semantics of 'body' on an existing configuration, which an agent must know before repeating a call.

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. The description adds value by explaining that channel/ChannelOAuthId is resolved internally (so the agent needn't supply a header), and clarifying that impactConfirmed is required specifically for supplier credential/configuration changes – a nuance the schema's generic wording does not convey.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Saves auto-ordering configuration') and scopes it to 'one visible store/channel'. It's distinguishable from the sibling read tool hgr_get_autoordering_configuration and from hgr_remove_autoordering_configuration, though the description doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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?

States prerequisites (confirmed=true and impactConfirmed=true for supplier credential/configuration changes) which implies the confirmation workflow, but never says when to use this versus hgr_save_channel_setting or hgr_save_source_setting, nor when auto-ordering save is inappropriate. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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