update_order_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full disclosure. It does reveal meaningful behaviors: valid transitions and digital orders auto-transitioning to COMPLETED. However, it omits CANCELLED from the transition list even though it appears in the enum, and it doesn't clarify error handling or side effects. This creates gaps for edge cases.

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 two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the state machine rule is packed concisely. Every sentence contributes valuable information without redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining core domain rules (transitions and special case). However, it leaves out the CANCELLED state, return format, and error conditions, which are relevant for a status update tool. It's mostly complete but missing edge-case details.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by defining the state machine and how status values relate to each other, enriching the enum semantics. Notes remain only schematically described, but the overall parameter meaning is enhanced.

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 clearly states 'Update the fulfillment status of an order' with a specific verb and resource. It also lists valid transitions, which distinguishes it from other order-related tools like get_order or list_orders. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

The structure of valid transitions provides clear context for when the tool can be used, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since there is no other order update tool among siblings, usage is fairly obvious, but the absence of explicit when-not-to-use guidance prevents a higher score.

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