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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true; the description supplements this with partial-update semantics ('only the fields you pass are sent'), the archive/unarchive behavior, and the underlying PUT /v3/order/:id contract. It stops short of disclosing permission requirements, reversibility of archive, or side effects on related entities.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and the mutable surface, closing with the API mapping. No filler, though the enumerated field list is somewhat redundant with the 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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation surface and the partial-payload rule, which is the main thing an agent must know. Gaps remain around failure modes, permissions, and whether archived state blocks further edits.

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 every parameter is already documented, including the status enum and the cross-reference to list_workflow_statuses. The description's field list largely restates the schema rather than adding format, default, or interaction semantics, 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 ('Update a work order') and enumerates exactly which facets can be changed (workflow status, status enum, complaint/recommendation, due date, service writer, archive), which cleanly separates it from create_order, get_order, and 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?

The line 'Only the fields you pass are sent' is a useful patch-semantics cue, and the workflowStatusId field points at shopmonkey_list_workflow_statuses as a lookup. However there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. permissions, whether archived orders are editable), and no routing to a sibling for related operations.

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