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

Annotations alone only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds the critical behavioral detail an agent needs — that sending `items` replaces the entire list and drops omitted items not matched by id or external_id. It also clarifies the order remains a draft and nothing is charged, which is exactly the kind of destructive-scope disclosure required.

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 clauses: what it does, the destructive caveat, and the safety note, with the most dangerous fact (items replacement) front and center. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 nested, 9-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk gotcha and the draft-only constraint. It could say a bit more about merge semantics for other objects (recipient, packing_slip) or required fields, but the essential caveats are 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 coverage is 67% (above the 50% baseline of 3), and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining patch semantics and the replace-vs-merge behavior of the `items` array keyed on id/external_id. It does not cover every nested field, so it is a solid addition rather than exhaustive.

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 (Change/Update) on a precisely scoped resource: a DRAFT order, explicitly 'unsubmitted orders only'. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like printful_create_draft_order and printful_get_order without requiring the schema to be opened.

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 patch-style usage guidance ('send only the fields to change') and a hard constraint (draft orders only, never with confirm). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not to use this over a submit/confirm flow, so it stops short of the top band.

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