wb_order_meta_set

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

With no annotations, the description at least discloses the mutation intent and a status precondition. It does not say whether existing marking is overwritten, whether the call is idempotent, or what response/errors are returned.

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?

One compact sentence with the action front-loaded, allowed values, and a precondition. Every phrase earns its place; P0 adds priority signal without bloat.

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 simple setter, the key invocation conditions and value formats are present. However, there is no output schema and no description of the result or failure modes, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the call's outcome.

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?

The description adds context that these params form FBS marking and restates the meta_type enum, but the schema already supplies enum values and value formats. order_id remains only inferable from the tool name and context.

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 uses the specific verb 'Set' with a clear resource, 'FBS order marking', and enumerates the exact meta_type values. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling get/delete and DBS/CC meta tools because it explicitly scopes to FBS.

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?

It gives a clear condition: only in status 'confirm' and for Chestny Znak marking. It does not explicitly exclude DBS/CC alternatives, but the FBS scoping plus sibling naming makes the target context clear.

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