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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains the line_items mutation logic (id + quantity 0 = remove, id + quantity > 0 = update, no id = add), that totals are recalculated after mutation, and that via Royally a human must approve before anything changes on the site. The approval gating is a critical behavioral fact not captured by destructiveHint/idempotentHint and is disclosed clearly.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and field semantics, then the approval caveat last. The parenthetical site string is mildly redundant with site_id enum but overall the text is tight and every sentence carries information.

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 an 8-param nested-object mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the important unknowns: optionality, line_items semantics, total recalculation, and the human-approval gate. Return-shape detail is not needed since no output schema exists and the mutation outcome is described.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the line_items rules the description restates. The description adds the useful framing that everything but order_id is optional, but otherwise duplicates structured data rather than adding new meaning (e.g., status value enums, meta_data merge vs replace behavior).

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 ("Update an existing WooCommerce order") and describes scope (all fields except order_id optional). It does not explicitly differentiate from the close sibling royal-mcp__wc_update_order_status, which is a real source of confusion for an agent deciding between general update and status-only update.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the field-level semantics suggest general order editing, but there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance nor a pointer to wc_update_order_status or wc_add_order_note as alternatives. The approval-workflow note is behavioral, not a selection guideline.

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