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

The description reveals important behavior beyond the bare annotations: the transition is atomic ('nothing is written'), history is stamped with date/note, and archiving a finished job frees a free-tier slot. These are non-obvious side effects and constraints that the annotations do not convey.

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 short sentences carry the core action, the transition rule, and the side effect with no filler. The most identifying constraint ('exactly one step') is front-loaded before the status list.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the state machine, failure behavior, history side effect, and plan impact. It still leaves minor ambiguity about what a 'finished job' is and what the response looks like, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 75%, and the description adds meaning to the parameters it mentions: note is 'stamped into history', date is the stamp date, and status is constrained by the one-step rule. It does not fully elaborate every parameter, but it goes beyond the schema's bare property descriptions.

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 names the specific verb ('Move'), the resource ('one job card'), and the exact allowed status sequence, making it immediately clear what the tool does. It is also easy to distinguish from sibling tools like job_card_create, job_card_delete, and job_card_log_labor because it is scoped to a single status transition.

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 use case is clearly conveyed: advance a job card by exactly one step in a defined order. The refusal of skipped/backwards steps tells the agent what not to attempt, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as job_card_create or job_card_log_* as the right tools for other operations.

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