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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description must add behavioral detail beyond those. It does: the tool transitions a job to in-progress, places the printer in maintenance mode, and stops AutoPrint from sending work. This explains the operational side effects. It does not mention permissions or error cases, but the core behavioral impact is clearly disclosed.

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 tight sentences carry the action, the state condition, and the result. Every sentence earns its place: the verb is first, the context is immediate, and the safety framing is succinct. No redundant wording or filler.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it does, when it works, and why it's safe. The annotations cover the mutation/read-only hints, and the status constraint is the only real prerequisite. Nothing essential 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 0% and there is only one required parameter (job_id) with no description. The description compensates by specifying the valid object: a maintenance job currently in 'scheduled' status. This adds a critical constraint on the parameter value, clarifying that the job_id must refer to a scheduled job, which is meaningful beyond the bare integer type.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('a scheduled maintenance job') and clearly states the state transition ('to in-progress') and the system effect ('putting the printer into maintenance mode so AutoPrint stops sending it work'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_maintenance_job and complete_maintenance_job, which handle different lifecycle transitions.

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 the precondition 'Only works on a job in "scheduled" status' and frames it as 'the safe direction' for taking a printer out of rotation. It implies when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives, though it does not name sibling tools or say when not to use it beyond the status restriction. This gives clear context for tool selection.

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