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

Annotations already declare a destructive, idempotent, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: Farmbrite may trigger customer notifications on some status changes depending on account settings — a real side effect an agent should weigh. It stops short of covering failure modes or whether arbitrary status transitions are permitted.

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 with zero filler, front-loaded with the 'WRITE:' marker so the mutation nature is the first thing read. The endpoint reference is a compact way to convey path parameter usage.

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 three-parameter status-mutation tool with no output schema, this covers purpose, mutable surface, and the notable notification side effect. Missing are return-value expectations and any statement about invalid transitions or whether the order must already exist.

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 only 33% (only order_id is documented in-schema), so the description must compensate; it does by naming the two mutable fields, noting they are independently optional ('and/or'), and giving example values ('Paid', 'Delivered') that anchor the enums. It does not explain the semantics of individual status values or allowed transition order, leaving a modest gap.

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 and resource (change an order's status and/or payment status) plus the HTTP method and path, which makes it immediately distinguishable from farmbrite_create_order, farmbrite_get_order and farmbrite_list_orders. The scope limit — only status and payment status are changeable — prevents the agent from expecting a general order-field editor.

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?

Clear about the context of use (marking orders Paid/Delivered or moving through the status list) and implicitly excludes other order edits by naming only two fields. It does not name an alternative tool or state prerequisites, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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