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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses real consequences: drivers receive work in the app, customers may be notified via status rules, success returns an empty 204, and ITINERARY_PLANNING_ACCESS is required. It does not warn that the call is non-idempotent (annotations say idempotentHint=false), so a repeated call could dispatch twice, and it says nothing about the driver_pay_locked_status branch effects.

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 commit/dispatch effect is front-loaded in the first clause, and the approval precondition follows immediately. It is dense but well ordered; only the trailing permission and endpoint notes are slightly less essential than the behavioral warnings that are absent.

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 destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers the effect, the sequencing prerequisite, the required parameter shape, the permission, and the empty 204 response. An agent has enough to call it correctly and only once.

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 67%. The description restates the stop fields (id, type, sequence, from) which are already fairly well documented in the schema, and adds the useful instruction to copy `from` from the plan reply. It adds nothing about `confirm` or `driver_pay_locked_status`, which the schema already explains, so the net value over the schema is modest.

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 a specific verb and resource ('COMMIT an order plan') and immediately states the concrete effect: orders are assigned to drivers and dispatched. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling planning tools (cxt_plan_orders, cxt_optimize_order_plan), which are named as prerequisites rather than equivalents.

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 gates usage: 'Use only after the user has seen and approved the plan from cxt_plan_orders / cxt_optimize_order_plan.' That names both the alternative tools and the condition that selects this one over them, leaving nothing to inference.

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