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

Annotation readOnlyHint=false declares the tool is not read-only, yet the description explicitly says 'Calling this changes nothing' and places the actual mutation behind a merchant-only confirmation page. That directly contradicts the annotation's read-only signal. Some auth context is provided, but the contradiction forces a score of 1.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the 'Money is integer minor units' sentence does not belong to this schema and adds noise. The remaining sentences about preview/confirmation are useful, so structure is only partially efficient.

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 settings-write workflow with no output schema, the description usefully explains the preview and confirmation-link return behavior and merchant-only execution. However, the contradiction around whether the call itself changes anything leaves the agent without a coherent safety model.

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 refund/receipt/shipment parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaningful parameter guidance, and the 'Money is integer minor units (cents)' sentence is irrelevant and potentially confusing.

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 ('Write') and resource ('shop's own words on its order emails'), enough to identify the customization of order email paragraphs. It does not differentiate from the many settings_* siblings, and the money-units sentence is unrelated, but the core purpose is 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?

Implies usage for editing order notification text and notes that only the merchant can execute the change via a confirmation link. It does not say when to choose this over related settings tools or what prerequisites apply.

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