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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the two-mode behavior (immediate change when edit-approval is off, otherwise a proposal for review), the failure mode ('stale proposals conflict'), and the explicit scope ceiling on what is never altered. This is substantive operational context the annotations do not carry.

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 dense sentences with no filler and the trigger front-loaded. It is slightly packed in the middle sentence (approval branch), but every clause carries information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, branching behavior, and scope limits well. The remaining gap is parameter-level guidance for the three unexplained fields, but overall an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it does name five editable fields (title, description, priority, assignedTo, appointmentDate). However, it leaves rationale, idempotencyKey, and especially expectedApprovalRequired unexplained, so coverage of the 9 params is only partial.

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 (correct/change) and resource (an open job / work order) and enumerates the editable fields, so it is clearly distinguishable from draft_work_order (create) and view_work_order (read) 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 explicit trigger ('use this when correcting an open job's details') and clear exclusions ('Never changes closure, spending approval, costs or safety sign-off'), plus the approval-preference branch that decides immediate edit vs proposal. It does not name specific sibling alternatives, keeping it just below a 5.

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