Refuse a draft update

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 safety and retry profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the refusal is communicated to the buyer (a counterparty-visible side effect), but says nothing about the resulting draft state or reversibility of the refusal.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the trigger condition first and no filler. Slightly compressed phrasing ("refuses the update with a reason the buyer is told") but nothing is wasted.

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, 3-required-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the intent and the buyer notification but omits the post-refusal state and the draft vs non-draft distinction against a direct sibling. Adequate, not complete.

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 67% and the reason/requestId parameters already carry detailed descriptions, including that the reason is shown to the buyer. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, and the bare `id` parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: refusing a draft update as a seller. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling growwer_refute_seller_order_update (non-draft variant), leaving the agent to infer the difference from the name alone.

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 will not change a draft as the buyer asked" gives an explicit trigger condition for invocation. However, it names no alternative and gives no exclusion — an agent facing a non-draft order update has no routing hint.

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