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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the single destructiveHint annotation: it explains the read-before-write strategy needed because Buildium's PUT is a full replace, enumerates what is preserved (line items, entry contacts), and flags that passing line_items/entry_contact_ids destroys existing values. This is exactly the kind of destructive-blast-radius detail an agent needs.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the destructive/replace semantics. The closing API line ('Buildium: GET then PUT /v1/workorders/{workOrderId}') is compact and reinforces the read-modify-write model rather than padding.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers preservation, replacement traps, and where non-editable fields live — the main things an agent must know. It stops short of describing what the call returns or any permission/validation failure modes, which would round it out.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and indeed the description's parameter guidance ('Passing line_items REPLACES all existing line items') largely mirrors the schema's own 'Replace ALL line items with this list.' and 'Replace the entry contact user ids.' The only marginal addition is the overall partial-update framing.

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's details') and goes further by scoping the operation as a read-then-write against '/v1/workorders/{workOrderId}'. Its siblings (buildium_get_work_order, buildium_create_work_order, buildium_list_work_orders) are clearly distinguished by the update framing and the explicit redirect of status/priority/due-date to the linked task.

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 operational context: PUT replaces the whole record, so the tool does a read-modify-write preserving unpassed fields, and line_items/entry_contact_ids are full replacements. It also signals that status, priority, and due date belong on the linked task, implicitly routing to task tooling, though it never names buildium_update_todo_task explicitly.

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