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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, so the description carries the rest of the burden and does so well: it warns that this MODIFIES live store data, that it may trigger customer notifications, and that it returns {updateCount}. It stops short of stating permission requirements or reversibility of a status change.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place, with the mutation risk and the endpoint front-loaded before the patch instruction and return shape. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly discloses the return as {updateCount}, and it covers the mutation/side-effect profile for a destructive write. It omits auth/permission expectations, but for a 4-parameter flat update tool this is close to complete.

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 description coverage is 100% and two parameters carry full enums, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by clarifying that only fields intended for change should be supplied, i.e. partial-update semantics that the schema does not express.

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 specific verb (UPDATES) plus the resource (an order) and enumerates the exact mutable fields (payment status, fulfillment status, tracking number). This cleanly separates it from read-oriented siblings like ecwid_get_order and ecwid_search_orders without needing either 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?

"Provide only the fields you want to change" gives real patch-semantics guidance, which is useful. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-to-use vs when-not conditions relative to the sibling order tools, so usage is only partially covered.

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