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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the tool MODIFIES live store data, may trigger customer notifications, and only updates supplied fields. It also specifies the PUT endpoint and the return value, giving the agent important behavioral context without contradiction.

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: the action and target are stated first, followed by warnings and usage instruction, and finally the return format. Every sentence contributes necessary information with no filler.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the effect on live data, side effects, partial-update behavior, the HTTP method, and the return value. With the input schema already documenting all parameters, nothing critically missing prevents an agent from invoking this tool correctly.

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. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics by explaining that omitted fields are not changed, which is crucial for correctly invoking an update operation. It also maps the three mutable fields named in the description to the schema properties.

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 clearly states that the tool UPDATES an order and enumerates the specific fields it can modify: payment status, fulfillment status, and tracking number. This makes its purpose immediately distinguishable from sibling tools such as ecwid_get_order or ecwid_search_orders.

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 context that this tool is for modifying existing orders and instructs to 'Provide only the fields you want to change,' which is useful practical guidance. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the operative verb and resource make the intended use unambiguous.

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