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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new information: the status's automations may fire (emails, stock moves) and the new status is not propagated to the marketplace unless send_status_to_external is set. That is exactly the side-effect disclosure an agent needs before a 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 sentences, each load-bearing: action, side effects, external-push default, and the id lookup pointer. The 'WRITE:' prefix front-loads the most decision-relevant fact.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers action, scope, side effects, defaults, and id discovery. Nothing needed to invoke it safely 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds the default semantics for send_status_to_external (default false, must be set to true to push) that the schema alone does not state. order_id and status_id are covered by the schema, so no further gain there.

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") plus the scope constraint (single order, only the status field) and even the underlying call shape. This clearly separates it from read siblings like sellasist_get_order or sellasist_list_orders.

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?

Names sellasist_list_order_statuses as the prerequisite lookup for status ids and explains the send_status_to_external branch, which tells an agent how to use the tool correctly. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it versus other order mutation paths, so it's strong but not fully exhaustive.

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