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

With annotations covering mutability (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: the two-step authorization process (call without authorization, then retry with EIP-712), the constraint that only editable fields may differ, and that request.data must contain the complete corrected request. This is valuable context not present in the schema or annotations.

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 a compact paragraph of three sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains the request.data format, and finally the authorization flow. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Given a mutation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the key workflow (two-step authorization) and data requirements. It could mention rate limits, error handling, or what happens after submission, but it's largely sufficient for an agent to call correctly.

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 explains that request.data should contain the complete corrected request with inputText, and that orderHandle identifies the order. However, it doesn't describe the authorization parameter's fields (which are fully specified in the schema) or the orderHandle format beyond its presence.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Submit requested customer input for an order.' This distinguishes it from siblings like daski_confirm_delivery or daski_cancel_order, which are different order actions. It's clear, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

The description implies usage context ('requested customer input'), but doesn't specify when to use this versus other order-modification tools. It mentions editable fields and the authorization flow, which is useful, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives.

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