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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and 'Scope: jobs:write' adds a useful permission hint. However, the description does not state whether this is a partial update or what happens to existing inferred values; the informative 'Only these fields are writable; inferred values are kept' appears in the schema, not in the tool description.

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?

The description is two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It delivers the core purpose first and appends a compact scope note, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse quickly.

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 write operation with nested objects and no output schema, the description is a minimal summary: it identifies the target fields and the job context but does not explain the effect of the write or what response to expect. The schema fills in some gaps, but the tool description alone is thin.

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 100%, so the schema already documents job_id, origin, destination, and move_date with ranges and writability notes. The description only maps its noun phrase to 'both ends', adding little meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('confirm') on a clear resource ('floors / elevator / stairs / carry distance for both ends'), so an agent can tell what the tool is about. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like set_move_date or report_outcome, but the unique focus on access logistics makes it reasonably distinct.

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?

The description provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling alternatives are mentioned. The only extra signal is 'Scope: jobs:write', which is a permission scope rather than a usage rule, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the name and parameters.

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