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

With only minimal annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses the ordered status chain, the single-step constraint, rejection of backward/skipped/backdated moves, and atomicity ('nothing is written'). It also implies non-idempotency, since a second successful move would be refused.

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 front-load the core action and constraints. The refusal sentence earns its place; the final 'Free.' is minor extra context but not distracting.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential transition rules, refusal conditions, and what is stamped. It does not specify behavior when the requested status equals the current status or what the success response looks like, but those are not required for a correct basic invocation.

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% and the schema already documents parameters clearly, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by connecting the status parameter to the ordered pipeline and by warning that the date parameter must not be backdated.

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 operation: 'Move one work order exactly one step', and enumerates the full status pipeline (draft, scheduled, in_progress, done, invoiced). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create/list/get/delete tools, and the title reinforces the behavior without being tautological.

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?

Clearly scopes usage to one work order at a time, moving exactly one step, and defines refusal conditions ('skipped, backwards or backdated step is refused'). This gives an agent a clear sense of when not to call, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or suggest checking current status first.

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