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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses side effects (reserving items, assigning an order number), the irreversibility of canceling, and that Booqable validates the current status. The shortage-confirmation behavior is also flagged.

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 transitions and dense with useful constraints; every clause carries a constraint. Slightly packed—the parentheticals and endpoint string add length—but nothing is wasteful.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the transition graph, the revert caveat, the cancel exclusion, and side effects. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: revert is required specifically for started/stopped, and reserving may trigger a shortage warning. It stops short of detailing confirm_shortage beyond the schema text.

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 precise verb+resource ('Move an order between statuses') and enumerates the concrete transitions supported, which lets an agent distinguish it from the generic sibling booqable_update_order. The POST endpoint confirms the operation.

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?

Explicitly says what is NOT offered (canceling, because Booqable cannot un-cancel) and constrains when started/stopped are legitimate (only with revert: true), plus notes that those states are normally reached via pickup/return. This is when/when-not guidance an agent can act on directly.

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