update_order_status

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that WooCommerce side effects fire, specifically customer emails, and that setting 'refunded' does not move money — a genuinely consequential behavioral detail. The write-flag prerequisite is also surfaced, which annotations alone would not reveal.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its valid values, then the side-effect warning, then the caveat, then the prerequisite. Every sentence supplies information an agent needs to call this safely.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: valid values, side effects, the refund semantics trap, and the write gate. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no enum on the status property, the description carries the load by listing all seven valid statuses, which is the key semantic gap. order_id is left undefined (format, whether it accepts IDs vs keys), so a small gap remains.

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 ('Change an order's status') and immediately enumerates the exact target values, which distinguishes it from the read-only siblings list_orders/get_order and from update_stock. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Provides a clear operational precondition ('Needs WC_ALLOW_WRITES=true') and the 'refunded only relabels' caveat, which steers an agent away from using it for actual refunds. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the sibling set makes the boundary obvious.

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