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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them by explicitly saying it 'opens nothing by itself.' That is a meaningful addition, because the tool's name implies a write and the description prevents a false assumption of side effects. It could go further by describing the shape or length of the returned instructions.

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 core workflow is front-loaded, which is good, but the text carries filler such as 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' and a trailing 'WooCommerce's official API: Yes' that adds little for an agent. Two sentences is an appropriate length; the wording inside them is not fully earned.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description does its main job by stating that it returns step-by-step screens/buttons/fields and defers action to the browser tools. However, it never explains how the agent should supply the order identifier and desired status given the empty parameter list, which is a real gap for a task-specific tool. Otherwise the workflow picture is adequate.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no per-parameter meaning to add. The description does not address how the order and target status are conveyed to the tool, but with an empty schema there is nothing the description could document.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource (update order status) and then sharpens it by stating the tool actually 'Returns how to do it in WooCommerce step by step (screens, buttons, fields)' rather than performing the change. That resolves the tension between the mutation-flavored name and the read-only behavior. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like woocommerce_list_orders or cotlet_app_guide, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives a clear operating context: call this first to get step-by-step instructions, then 'do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's WooCommerce Cloud Browser.' That routing is genuinely useful for picking between this tool and the browser action tools. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming a direct-API alternative for actually changing the status.

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