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

Annotations mark it destructive, idempotent, and non-read-only, but the description adds the crucial side effect: APPROVED spawns a new work order carrying title/location/asset, while REJECTED does not. It also discloses the required write scope and a confirm-with-user safeguard – behavior beyond what any annotation conveys.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers scope, side effects, and the resolution workflow. Dense but every clause carries decision-relevant information with no filler.

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 complex mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, side effects, confirmation, and multi-step ID resolution – everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It even directs a post-call lookup to verify the created work order.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the location-related parameters must be supplied together and resolved parent-to-child via named tools, which the schema alone only hints at per-field. This goes beyond the dependency-free field descriptions.

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+resource with scope ('Update an existing work request by ID'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like update_work_order, create_work_request, and delete_work_request. An agent knows exactly what object is mutated.

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 explicit conditional guidance: APPROVED triggers work-order creation and requires user confirmation, REJECTED creates nothing, and location changes demand a specific top-down resolution chain (list_sites → list_buildings → list_locations). It names alternatives (list_work_orders) and the prerequisite scope.

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