gold_update_order_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful traits by naming the PUT method, the BYOK auth model, and the fail-closed behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, or whether downstream actions are triggered by a status change.

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 compact and front-loaded with the essential action and endpoint. The 'Gold PRO $29' prefix is non-essential noise but does not prevent an agent from parsing the invocation-relevant details quickly.

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 three-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, status scope, and auth/failure mode, and the schema covers the confirm requirement. It is workable, but the lack of annotation coverage and any return or side-effect detail leaves some assumptions implicit.

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?

Only one of three parameters (confirm) has a schema description, so the schema coverage is low and the description should compensate. The description clarifies that id is the order id in the path and that status is the new status, but it says nothing about the mandatory CONFIRM sentinel, leaving a critical execution gate undocumented outside the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('update'), resource ('order status'), and a concrete REST endpoint (PUT /wp-json/wc/v3/orders/{id} {status}), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. This clearly differentiates it from sibling order-related tools like gold_get_order and gold_create_refund.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gold_create_refund or gold_list_orders. The text mentions BYOK fail-closed, which hints at an auth prerequisite, but it does not explain when this tool is appropriate or when another sibling should be preferred.

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