Unblock ordering for a location

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

Annotations already mark it as non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent; the description adds useful behavioral detail by listing the three changes it applies and the login requirement. It does not mention the dry-run/apply flow, but that is carried by the input schema, so the description complements rather than contradicts 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?

Two sentences with no filler; the error symptom and required changes are front-loaded ahead of the login prerequisite. Every word earns its place.

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 mutating tool with a rich input schema and output schema, the description covers the trigger, the actions, and the auth requirement. It could have added an explicit pointer to start_crave_auth or the dry-run-first sequence, but those are inferable from siblings and schema, leaving only a minor gap.

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%, with all four parameters fully documented including enums, defaults, and the planDigest pattern. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('fixes') plus a concrete error message and the exact configuration changes (24/7 hours, scheduled orders, takeout). This distinguishes it from single-purpose siblings like update_store_hours or set_takeout_enabled without needing to name them.

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?

Explicitly ties the tool to a specific error condition, telling an agent when to invoke it, and notes the prerequisite login. It does not explicitly contrast with individual sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the error-message trigger provides clear context.

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