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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false. The description adds some behavioral context by stating only open orders can be updated and that batched execution via order_ids is supported. It does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or behavior when an order is not open, but the open-order constraint is useful.

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 short and easy to scan, but the opening sentence 'Update Order.' is redundant with the tool name and adds little value. The following sentences are concise and useful, yet the overall structure is not optimally front-loaded because the first sentence is essentially filler.

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 tool with four parameters, a nested required request object, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, this description is incomplete. It does not explain how request or order_id should be used, what a successful response looks like, or what prerequisites exist beyond the broad 'open order' statement. The bulk execution note is the only additional context.

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, but it only clarifies the order_ids parameter via 'Bulk support: accepts order_ids for batched execution.' The required order_id and the nested request object (especially its name field) are not explained at all, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from property names alone.

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 clear action and resource: 'Update Order. Updates an open order.' The phrase 'open order' adds a scope constraint that distinguishes it from related tools like public_submit_order or public_get_order. However, it does not specify what can be updated beyond the general 'order' resource.

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 offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives. It only mentions that order_ids supports batched execution, which hints at a usage scenario but does not explain when to prefer this tool over public_submit_order, public_upsert_order_item, or other order-related siblings.

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