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

Annotations already declare the operation as readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the access/ownership rule behind edit authorization, which is not captured by annotations. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by clarifying an authorization nuance that could otherwise cause failed calls.

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 destructive update tool with no output schema and no parameter-level descriptions, the description covers the key access condition but leaves statusToken semantics and the exact effect of the update under-specified. It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only names 'tagline' and 'description' as the content being updated. It provides no explanation for 'orderId' or 'statusToken', and no guidance on formats or required semantics beyond what parameter names suggest. This leaves a notable gap for a required-parameter-heavy mutation.

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?

The description clearly identifies the update action and the resources being modified ('tagline and description'), making the tool's purpose evident. It adds a scope condition ('only when the private order capability controls the listing') that helps distinguish it from purchase or quote operations, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 description gives an explicit precondition for use: only when the private order capability controls the listing. It also provides a clear when-not condition: paying to boost someone else's listing does not grant edit access. This is strong usage guidance that prevents erroneous calls.

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