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

The annotations already declare the operation is a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds real value by disclosing that the call stamps the confirmation, locks the list, is safe to repeat, and requires jobs:write scope. It does not say whether locking is reversible or what happens if the list is already locked.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the side effects and scope stated compactly. The terse fragment style and the redundant restatement of the body shape cost it some polish, but almost nothing is padding.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential effects, idempotency, and auth scope. It falls short on the irreversible-lock semantics and on failure behavior, which matter for a state-changing confirmation step.

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 67%, with job_id and confirmed already documented in the schema. The description restates the body shape ({ confirmed: true, notes }), which mainly duplicates the schema, and it never explains what the optional notes parameter is for.

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 says the customer sends their list to the mover and that it 'locks the list', which conveys a specific action on a specific resource. But the framing sentence 'On a job the mover prices' is garbled and does nothing to separate this from close siblings such as approve_inventory, quote_inventory, or submit_job.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this rather than approve_inventory or submit_job, and no preconditions beyond the incidental 'Scope: jobs:write'. 'Safe to repeat' is a behavioral note about idempotency, not guidance on choosing this tool.

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