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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing the required permission, the specific side effect that shipped inventory is not reversed, the two-step confirmation flow, token expiry and single-use semantics, and that a confirm boolean is ignored. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs for a destructive mutation.

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 description is dense but front-loaded with the permission and core action before the procedural details. Every sentence carries useful information, though the token-flow explanation is slightly verbose.

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 destructive two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the permission, side effects, confirmation protocol, token lifetime, and invalid-argument behavior. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains confirm_token (two-step use, five-minute expiry, single use) and makes the role of order_id obvious, but does not describe the order_id format or any constraints.

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 ('Delete a sales order') and adds a permission prerequisite. It is clearly distinct from read-only siblings like get_sales_order, though it does not explicitly differentiate from cancel_sales_order, which is a meaningful alternative.

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?

Provides strong procedural context: the first call without confirm_token returns a token and does not write, and the second call must repeat the same arguments plus the token. It does not state when to use deletion versus cancellation or other sibling operations, so no exclusions are offered.

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