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 profile is covered. The description adds non-annotation context the agent needs: the required write scope and the ordering dependency for location fields. It does not describe partial-failure or overwrite behavior, so not a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and ID, then permission, then the non-obvious location workflow. 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 an 11-parameter mutation with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the essential extras (scope, ID keying, location resolution chain). It stops short of explaining return value or how omitted fields are treated, which is acceptable but leaves a small gap.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine cross-field constraint not derivable from the schema: when changing location you must supply site_id, building_id, and location_id together via a specific resolution order. That elevates it above the baseline.

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 (Update) and resource (existing work request) with the keying mechanism (by ID). The resource name cleanly separates it from update_work_order and the other ~300 update_* siblings.

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 actionable prerequisite (requires work_requests:write scope) and a conditional workflow: 'When changing location, resolve top-down' with the exact sibling tools and filters. No explicit when-not guidance or mention of update_work_request vs bulk_update, hence not a 5.

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