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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the write/irreversible nature is known. The description still adds real value beyond them: collection fields replace their complete lists, omitted fields remain unchanged, and changes can notify clients and trigger integrations.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the scope of the update, then the two rules that matter most (replace semantics, omitted-field preservation), then side effects. No filler.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation scope and the key replacement behavior. It omits permission/access requirements and any statement of what the response returns, though annotations cover the safety profile.

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 every parameter already documents its format, limits, and replacement semantics (e.g., tags, employees, linked_orders all note 'replaces'). The description's field list restates what the schema carries rather than adding new syntax or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Update) and resource (an order), then enumerates the updatable facets (status, dates, notes, service, assignments, tags, metadata, linked orders). An agent can distinguish this from order-read at a glance. It stops short of naming sibling tools, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is offered. The mention that changes 'can notify clients and trigger integrations' hints at caution but never states prerequisites, permissions, or which alternative tools to consider when a narrower write is needed.

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