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

The description adds important behavior beyond the annotations: the operation goes through Royally and waits for a person to approve it, with nothing changing on the site until then. It also explains that the optional note appears in the WooCommerce admin order timeline. This is meaningful context for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the approval behavior is stated early enough to matter. The parenthetical site reference is redundant with the schema, but overall the description is compact and mostly free of wasted text.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important workflow constraint: approval is required before site changes occur. It also explains note behavior and site scope. What is missing is any indication of what the call returns while awaiting approval or after approval.

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 documents id, status, site_id, and note. The description adds only a small amount beyond that by noting where the note is displayed, and does not elaborate on status values or required parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries most parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Update WooCommerce order status." It clearly scopes the operation to status changes, which distinguishes it from the broader wc_update_order sibling and from note-only wc_add_order_note.

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 by the verb "Update" and resource "order status," but the description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of wc_update_order or wc_add_order_note. No when-not conditions or alternatives are named.

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