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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the real side effects — event procedures such as customer emails, stock bookings, documents and shipping — which the destructiveHint=true alone does not convey. The 'Only the status is sent' note clarifies the partial-update semantics that the annotations and schema leave ambiguous.

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 label and the core action, followed by the risk warning and then the mechanics. Nothing redundant.

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-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the side effects, the update scope and where to get valid status ids. An agent has everything needed to call it safely without guessing.

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 50%: status_id is documented in the schema with an example, and the description adds that ids come from plentymarkets_list_order_statuses, which is useful. order_id is undocumented in both places and the description only implies it via the endpoint path. 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('move an order to another status') and labels it WRITE, which immediately distinguishes it from the many read-only list/get siblings. The endpoint reference (PUT /rest/orders/{orderId}) pins down the resource exactly.

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?

States a clear precondition: confirm the target status with the user first, and names plentymarkets_list_order_statuses as the way to get ids. That's good routing. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. use the history tool to inspect status changes), so it lacks an explicit exclusion.

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