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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds nothing about what those mean here: whether the transition is irreversible, whether history/timestamps are recorded, or what side effects (notifications, billing) fire. For a destructive mutation, 'Moves' is too soft a verb and the description omits all consequence information.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is good. But the brevity is achieved by omitting necessary information rather than by efficient phrasing, so it reads as under-specified for a destructive state change.

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?

No output schema, a destructive non-idempotent annotation profile, and only two parameters — the bar is low, yet the description still says nothing about the result (does it return the updated work order?), error behavior on invalid transitions, or irreversibility. An agent could call it but cannot anticipate consequences.

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 50% and work_order_id already carries its own description pointing at list_work_orders. The sentence re-lists exactly the six status enum values without adding transition rules, ordering, or which of the states are terminal — so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Moves') and resource ('a work order') plus the target state field, which is unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from the many update_*/create_* siblings by naming the status transition, though it never explicitly contrasts with update_change_order or update_service_ticket_status.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention that transitions may be restricted (e.g. cannot go from canceled back to completed). The agent gets no help deciding whether this is the right tool versus update_work_order-style edits or list_work_orders.

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