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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the two most consequential effects: Gelato starts production and the account gets charged, plus the constraint that only drafts qualify. This is exactly the extra context an agent needs since annotations only give abstract hints (destructiveHint, openWorldHint). It also notes items stay unchanged.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its side effects (production, charge) before the constraint and the API endpoint detail. 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?

For a single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the trigger condition, the financial and production consequences, and the underlying request. Everything needed to call it safely is present.

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 the single order_id param is fully documented with its pattern, length bounds, and that it must be a draft order id. The description adds the draft constraint context but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb ('Convert a DRAFT order into a regular order') and resource, and distinguishes it from the siblings gelato_create_order (creates) and gelato_delete_draft_order (removes drafts) by making clear this finalizes an existing draft rather than creating or deleting anything.

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?

Provides a clear precondition ('Only drafts can be submitted') that tells the agent when this tool applies versus the create/delete draft siblings. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools to use for non-draft orders, but the precondition does most of the routing work.

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