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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent/openWorld, and the description goes well beyond them: no marketplace status updates, the effect is propagated to the marketplace, irreversibility via this API, no automatic retry, plus explicit advice to verify state in Channable after a timeout. That is exactly the context an agent needs before 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?

Front-loaded with the primary effect, then endpoint, then caveats — dense and mostly waste-free. However, 'Channable takes no further action on it (no status updates to the marketplace)' followed by 'Channable passes this change on to the marketplace' reads as mildly self-contradictory and costs a re-read.

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 2-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers consequences, irreversibility, retry behavior and timeout recovery. It omits preconditions such as required order state or permissions, a minor gap given the otherwise thorough behavioral coverage.

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% and the schema already documents order_id and the optional project_id with a default. The description embeds them in the REST path but adds no semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (mark an order as manually handled) and states the operational consequence: Channable takes no further action and stops pushing status updates to the marketplace. That consequence distinguishes it from channable_cancel_order and channable_ship_order without either schema being opened.

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 trigger condition is clear ('you handle this order yourself'), which tells the agent when this tool applies. It does not explicitly name the alternatives (cancel, ship) or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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