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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the downstream side effect that associated assets may become available again, plus the concrete PATCH endpoint. It stops short of stating whether completion is reversible or what happens on repeat calls.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action and its consequence, followed by the endpoint. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effect on assets, and the HTTP endpoint. It omits error behavior (e.g. already-complete) and any note on irreversibility, which would make it fully complete.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents work_order_number, including its accepted formats. The description only echoes the parameter inside the endpoint path; 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?

Specific verb+resource ("Mark a work order complete") that is inherently distinguishable from siblings like start_work_order, create_work_order, and get_work_order. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the note that assets may become available again hints at when the effect matters. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement about what to do if the work order is already complete.

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