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

With annotations declaring this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: open quantities are reduced to shipped, committed exposure is released, the reason is retained, and the order may derive closed. It does not fully discuss reversibility or authorization requirements, but it discloses the core state changes beyond what the annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then gives scoping and effects. The phrase 'backorders die honestly' is colorful but adds limited operational information; otherwise, the sentences are purposeful and well organized.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action, scoping behavior, and business effects. It could be slightly more complete about return behavior or failure conditions, but it is sufficiently complete 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 100%, so the schema already explains all three parameters. The description adds only a restatement of the lines behavior and a note that the reason is kept, which is useful but does not significantly extend the parameter semantics beyond the structured schema.

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 scope: cancel the open remainder of a partially fulfilled order. It clearly distinguishes this from canceling a whole order by emphasizing that the fulfilled part stays intact, so an agent can identify when this tool applies.

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 explicit usage guidance for the partial-vs-full case: pass line ids to close only some lines, omit them to close every open remainder. It also clarifies the operational context that this is for unfulfilled remainders, though it does not name a specific alternative sibling tool such as full-order cancellation.

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