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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds only the vague notions of "immutable fictional rows" and a "private order capability," without explaining what may be destroyed, how the order access token is used, or what happens to existing previous/current rows.

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 single sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity comes at the cost of clarity. It is not front-loaded with actionable information about the operation or its parameters.

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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with five required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The one-line description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand the inputs, side effects, or safe invocation conditions.

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?

All five parameters are required and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions none of them by name and does not explain order_id, order_access_token, previous, current, or synthetic_only.

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 phrase "Attach immutable fictional rows" gestures at an action, but "under the buyer's private order capability" is opaque jargon that does not clearly explain what the tool actually does. It largely restates the name and does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as marketplace_reconcile_synthetic or marketplace_attach_public_inventory.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling to choose instead. The description provides no context for selecting it over marketplace_reconcile_synthetic or marketplace_attach_public_inventory.

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