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

With only destructiveHint=true from annotations, the description carries real behavioral weight: it discloses the GET-then-PUT patch strategy, that unspecified fields (including entry contacts) are preserved, and that passing line_items destroys/replaces all existing line items. That is exactly the destructive-action warning the annotation hints at but cannot spell out.

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?

Front-loads the core caveat (PUT is a full replace / this is a patch), then the destructive line_items warning, then the task-routing note, then the API call. No filler sentences.

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 and the annotations are minimal, so the description must cover behavior; it does, including the preservation guarantee and the one destructive field. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining that line_items REPLACES the full set and that entry_contact_ids replaces entry contacts, which the schema only labels generically.

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+resource (update a work order) and immediately clarifies the non-obvious scope: it is a read-then-PUT patch, not a blind overwrite. This distinguishes it from the create/get/list work order siblings.

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?

Gives clear conditions: pass only fields you want changed, and status/priority/due date must go through the linked task, which implicitly routes the agent to buildium_update_todo_task. It does not name that alternative tool explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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