Accept an order

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds one genuinely new fact — the buyer is notified — which is an irreversible outward-facing side effect not visible in the schema. It does not say what happens if the order is not in an acceptable state, nor confirm that acceptance cannot be undone.

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 sentence, no filler, and the usage trigger is front-loaded. But the grammar is tangled ('takes an order placed on one of their medias that waits for acceptance'), which costs a re-read and obscures what 'takes' means operationally.

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?

This is a destructive, state-changing tool with no output schema and an undocumented required 'id'. The description covers the happy-path trigger and one side effect but omits error/precondition behavior and the meaning of the primary identifier — the two things an agent most needs before committing an irreversible action.

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 coverage is only 50%: requestId is fully documented in the schema, but 'id' has no description anywhere. The description never mentions 'id' at all, so it fails to compensate for the gap and leaves the agent guessing whether it is the order id, media id, or buyer id.

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?

Specific verb+resource: accepts an order that was placed on one of the seller's medias and is awaiting acceptance, plus the consequence (buyer is notified). It implicitly separates itself from reject/approve siblings via the 'waits for acceptance' precondition, though it never names those siblings. Clear, but differentiation is by implication rather than explicit contrast.

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?

'Use this when a seller takes an order... that waits for acceptance' gives a usable trigger condition tied to order state. However, it never names the counterpart actions (growwer_reject_seller_order, growwer_approve_order, growwer_deliver_seller_order) or states when NOT to use it, so the agent must infer the branch from state alone.

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