Approve an order's delivery

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the irreversible nature ("cannot be undone"), the financial consequence (the seller is paid), and the human confirmation step before execution. The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so this is reinforcing but also enriching. It does not explain the idempotency/requestId replay behavior, though the schema does.

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?

Three short clauses, no waste, with the triggering condition front-loaded before the consequence and the irreversibility warning.

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 destructive, two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the terminal effect, irreversibility, and the confirmation flow. The remaining gap is the undocumented `id` parameter and what a caller gets back on success or failure.

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 thoroughly documented in the schema, but the required `id` parameter has no description anywhere. The description never mentions parameters at all, so the meaning of `id` (presumably the order identifier awaiting review) is only weakly inferable from "an order that waits for their review."

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 (approve an order's delivery) plus the business outcome: the order finishes and the seller is paid. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names or distinguishes itself from close siblings like growwer_approve_order_draft, growwer_deliver_seller_order, or growwer_reject_seller_order.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition: the user has reviewed a delivery that waits for their review and accepts it. That is a clear when-to-use rule, but no when-not-to-use and no named alternative for the rejection path, which exists as a sibling.

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