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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses the 500-order cap, that the operation is reversible by re-setting the status (directly mitigating the destructive flag), and that a per-order success list is returned. These are meaningful behavioral facts an agent would not otherwise know.

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 compact sentences: purpose, timestamps, reversibility, return, endpoint. Scoping and the batch limit are front-loaded, 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?

For a single-parameter batch mutation with no output schema, it covers the important operational facts (cap, reversibility, time formats, return shape). It could say more about partial-failure handling in the returned success list, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the enum statuses and the unixTimestamp/utcTime/localTime variants are already fully documented in the schema. The description's restatement of the time formats adds little beyond what the structured fields provide, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Set the completion status of up to 500 orders') and clarifies the batch scope plus the external-system use case. An agent can distinguish it immediately from the read-side sibling optimoroute_get_completion_details.

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 phrase 'from an external system' hints at the scenario (pushing status back from outside OptimoRoute), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative. 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.