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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the actual mechanism (webhook unregistration), what is preserved versus stopped, and the response payload shape. This is consistent with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, since repeated calls simply keep webhooks unregistered and no data is removed.

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 action and effect lead, followed by usage condition, preserved state, return shape, undo, and parameter notes. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description supplies the return fields, the mutation's effect on data, the reversal path, and full parameter resolution rules. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 only 50% (project_id has no schema description), and the description compensates fully: it states that project_id is optional, when it is inferred, and what to do when project_id_required is returned (call list_projects). It also confirms the provenance of marketplace_id via list_marketplaces.

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 ('Stop importing a marketplace's orders') and immediately explains the mechanism (unregisters order webhooks). The effect on state ('Imported orders and product listings stay') plus the named undo counterpart cleanly separates it from the enable/start siblings and from order-connected tools.

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 an explicit use condition ('when the user wants a marketplace's orders to stop flowing into the shop') and names the exact reversal tool, start_marketplace_order_sync. It does not, however, distinguish itself from similar-sounding siblings such as enable_marketplace_order_sync, disable_order_connection, or sync_marketplace_orders, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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