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

Annotations already mark this as a destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds important behavior beyond them: Brightpearl adds an order note, status changes can trigger alerts and automations, and cancellation removes reservations and coupons and is refused under certain conditions. These side effects and preconditions are exactly what an agent needs before invoking a destructive write.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with 'WRITE' and the core action, then layers constraints, side effects, and refusal conditions. Every sentence carries operational value, including the endpoint reference.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation: it covers the write nature, status id source, validity requirements, side effects, destructive cancellation behavior, and refusal conditions. Annotations reinforce the safety profile, and no critical missing context is apparent.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds useful semantic constraints for order_status_id by explaining where valid ids come from and what conditions the status must satisfy. It adds less detail about the note and note_is_public parameters beyond what the schema already documents, keeping it from a 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'move an existing order to another status.' It also distinguishes this write operation from the sibling read/list tool by pointing to brightpearl_list_order_statuses for status ids, so an agent can identify the tool without opening its schema.

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 description gives clear usage context: status ids must come from brightpearl_list_order_statuses, the target status must exist, be visible, and match the order's type, and cancellation is refused when goods-out notes or payments exist. It does not explicitly name alternatives for edge cases, but the operational guidance is concrete.

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