sync_orders

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the description carries the real burden and does so: it discloses the side effect that an imported paid order is pushed to the fulfillment provider like a live one, that `truncated` requires a re-run, and that `outcome: "auth_revoked"` requires the merchant to open a reconnect_url. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent must know before invoking.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then scoping, then pass-through and response fields in a single dense paragraph; nearly every clause adds information. Minor deductions for the run-on density of the response-field list and a stray artifact token ('[#e208cf]') at the end.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description documents the return shape in useful detail (`shopify[]` with processed, not_eligible_reasons, truncated, outcome/auth_revoked, plus `errors[]`), and it warns about the write side effect. Nothing critical to correct invocation 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% and both parameters are already documented, so the baseline applies. The description's store_uuid sentence essentially restates the schema text (one store vs. all), and the `workspace` parameter for agency accounts is never mentioned.

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 ('Import orders', 'refresh order status from fulfillment providers') plus the narrow scenario: orders a webhook should have delivered but never arrived. That is enough to separate it from sync_to_fulfillment or reconcile_order in practice, but no sibling is named for contrast, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 a clear trigger condition (orders that never reached ApparelHub, scoped to after the shop was connected, excluding cancelled/already-fulfilled) and states the store_uuid vs. omit-for-all choice. It never says when to prefer a sibling like reconcile_order or check_order_status instead, so no explicit exclusions.

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