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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that skipped/backwards steps are refused and nothing is written, and that archiving frees a slot. However, it does not mention whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the card is already in the target status, or any permission requirements. This is moderate coverage for a mutation tool.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the key action and statuses in the first sentence. The additional constraints are stated in one sentence each, and there is no filler. Every sentence adds important 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?

Given the schema already documents parameters and there is no output schema, the description covers the critical aspects: the exact statuses, the one-step rule, the refusal behavior, and the archiving side effect. It could be slightly more complete with mention of what the response contains or error handling, but for this simple mutation tool it is adequate.

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 75%, so most parameters have descriptions. The description adds the concept of 'one exactly one step' which clarifies the status parameter's roleable. However, it does not explain the 'date' and 'note' parameters beyond what the schema says (default today, optional). The description adds some value but no significant new semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'move' and the resource 'job card', and specifies the exact set of statuses. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on status transitions, while other tools like job_card_log_labor handle different actions.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to advance a job card by one step) and what is not allowed (skipped or backwards steps are refused). It also mentions that archiving frees a slot, which is a key context for deciding when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the set of statuses and the refusal rule make the usage context clear.

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