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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: partial update of only non-null fields, and that `seliee_collections_order_active=False` pauses waiting topics while True resumes them. It does not say what the destructive aspect actually affects, which is the main thing annotations leave open.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the lookup mechanism is front-loaded before the update semantics. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no documented parameters, the description covers identity resolution and the active flag but omits the three text fields and never clarifies whether at least one of `order_id`/`order_uuid` must be supplied (both default to null). Complete enough to attempt a call, not complete enough to call confidently.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the two lookup parameters and the semantics of `seliee_collections_order_active` in useful detail, but leaves `seliee_collections_order_note`, `_type` and `_title` entirely unexplained. Partial compensation for a six-parameter, zero-coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit a collection order') and adds how the target is located via `order_id` or `order_uuid`, which separates it from create/delete/get/list order siblings by inference. It never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than asserted.

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 line 'Only non-null fields are updated' tells the agent this is a partial-update tool, which is a real usage mechanic, but there is no statement of when to use this versus edit_collection, create_collections_order, or delete_collections_order, and no prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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