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

Well beyond the annotations: it documents the returned fields, the 409 'prerequisite_not_met' case, that nothing is saved on failure, and the two distinct causes (unfinished Koongo UI authentication, or activation not included/unconfirmable on the account, in which case retry later). Slightly dense, but the mutation's failure semantics and reversibility are fully disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and usage before the return-shape detail, and every clause carries information. The return/error sentence is long and parenthetically crowded, which costs some readability.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description supplies the return shape and error contract itself; it also covers prerequisites, undo, and parameter sourcing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 50% and project_id has no schema description; the description only flags it as OPTIONAL, while connection_id's origin (get_order_overview) is already stated in the schema. So it adds a little meaning but does not compensate for the undocumented project_id.

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 ('Turn ON order syncing for a standalone order connection') and explicitly scopes it to standalone order connections, which separates it from the marketplace-flavored siblings like enable_marketplace_order_sync and start_marketplace_order_sync.

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 the triggering intent ('when the user wants a connection's orders imported'), a prerequisite check (test_order_connection first), and the inverse operation (disable_order_connection) for undo. An agent has everything needed to choose this tool over its siblings.

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