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

Annotations only declare mutability, idempotency, and non-destructiveness; the description adds substantive behavior beyond that — the conditional append-vs-proposal-for-review branch based on approval preference, the technician assignment restriction, and explicit scope limits. It does not detail permissions/auth beyond technician assignment or the return shape.

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-loaded with the 'Use this when' trigger and four tight sentences with no filler. Minor redundancy between 'factual observation' and 'advisory note', but overall efficient.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the dual-mode behavior, permissions, and scope limits well, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the unexplained parameters (rationale, idempotencyKey, expectedApprovalRequired) leave gaps an agent must guess at.

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 description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only indirectly signals targetId/targetType ('authorized repair or maintenance task') and note ('factual observation'); it says nothing about rationale, idempotencyKey, or expectedApprovalRequired, leaving half the parameters unexplained.

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?

The description states a specific verb (append) and resource (advisory/factual note on a work order or maintenance task), and clarifies the draft-vs-immediate duality that the tool name alone obscures. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from (e.g., draft_work_order_update), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'Use this when...' condition and adds negative guidance ('Never replaces history, completes work or records safety sign-off'), which routes the agent away from misuse for completion/safety flows. It gives clear context but does not name the alternative tools to use for those excluded cases.

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