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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructive/not read-only/not idempotent), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the result is an unverified draft, no stock movement, no invoicing/payment. It does not flag the non-idempotency risk (duplicate orders via reference_no) nor what the call returns. The 'stock is not touched' framing sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=true, but it describes real draft semantics rather than contradicting the annotation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the write nature and the resulting document state, then the scope boundary, then the endpoint. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is 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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers what is created and what does not happen downstream, which is the important part. It stops short of saying what the response contains (e.g., created document id) or whether a new order number is returned, which an agent would want before chaining calls.

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 83%, so the schema already documents client_id, rows, type_id, location_id and reference_no with cross-references to list tools. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 (create), resource (sales order), required precondition (existing client) and resulting state (PENDING). 'WRITE:' plus the endpoint 'POST /SalesOrder/SalesOrderUpdate' makes it unambiguous against siblings like megaventory_list_sales_orders or megaventory_create_purchase_order.

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?

Gives clear context for when this applies (draft order creation) and explicitly bounds the scope by saying verifying, shipping and invoicing happen in Megaventory and not through this server. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when to prefer a different creation path (quote vs order vs purchase order).

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