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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, yet the description still adds substantive behavior the annotations can't express: the production-state refusal rule, the required Write API key, and a mandatory user-confirmation step. The concrete HTTP verb/path also removes ambiguity about what is actually deleted.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the write/destructive classification and the operation itself, then preconditions and the endpoint. No filler or restated name/title.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything else that matters: failure precondition, credential requirement, confirmation policy, and endpoint. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 single order_id parameter is already documented in the schema as "your order id, exactly as sent when the order was placed." The description's "by YOUR order id" reinforces the same point but adds no format, constraint, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

Opens with an explicit operation class ("WRITE: cancel (delete)") plus a specific resource and key ("an order by YOUR order id"), and names the underlying endpoint DELETE /order/{order_id}. This clearly separates it from siblings like customcat_create_order and customcat_get_order_status.

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?

States the hard precondition (only orders not yet in production; printed/shipped orders are refused), the auth requirement (Write API key), and a policy instruction ("Confirm with the user first"). An agent knows exactly when invocation will fail and what gate to pass before calling.

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