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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing a real side effect: 'The panel may send customer e-mails for some status changes.' It also clarifies the idempotency semantics ('Setting the same status again has no further effect'), reinforcing the declared idempotentHint. Missing only permission/auth notes for a destructive mutation.

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, front-loaded with the WRITE classification and core action, with no redundant phrasing. Every sentence adds distinct information.

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 2-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers action, idempotency, and side effects. It could add a note about required permissions or failure modes, but otherwise an agent has enough to invoke it 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% and the enum lists all valid statuses, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description names a few example statuses but adds no format or validation details beyond the schema, fitting the baseline 3.

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 the status of one order') with concrete example values (packed, ready, canceled) and an explicit WRITE marker. This clearly distinguishes it from read siblings like idosell_get_orders and idosell_list_order_statuses.

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 'WRITE: change the status of one order' framing implies when to use it, and the examples clarify intent, but no alternatives or preconditions are named (e.g., that idosell_list_order_statuses supplies the valid status set). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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