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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: omitted fields are left untouched, invalid values abort the whole update, and no changes are persisted when INVALID_FIELD_VALUE occurs. This atomic partial-update behavior is essential for correct invocation and is not already present in the 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 three sentences with no filler; it front-loads the main purpose, then states the update semantics, the return behavior, and the failure mode. Each sentence adds necessary information that is not already implied by the structured 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?

Despite having a complex 9-parameter schema with nested objects and no output schema, the description clearly covers the two most important operational aspects: partial updates and the all-or-nothing behavior. The schema further clarifies parameter sourcing such as order_id from create_certificate_order and paths from get_certificate_order_requirements, so the overall definition is sufficient for correct use.

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?

Because schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline here is a 3. The description adds an important global semantic that any omitted parameter is simply preserved, and that a single out-of-range value invalidates the entire request. This is substantial additional value beyond the field-level schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Częściowa aktualizacja zamówienia' (partial order update), which names the specific verb and resource. It further clarifies that only the submitted fields are changed while the rest remain untouched, making the update scope of the tool clear. It does not explicitly call out sibling update_draft, but the terms 'zamówienie' (order) versus draft give reasonable distinction.

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 provides clear contextual guidance: it is for partially updating an existing order and for checking 'aktualny status i pozostałe braki' (current status and remaining gaps), so the agent can infer it is the right tool when completing an existing certificate order. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives such as update_draft, leaving some inference to the agent.

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