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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the concrete HTTP method (PATCH) and the endpoint path, which is useful context. However it does not state whether the transition is reversible, what happens to the work order's status afterwards, or any permission requirements — modest value added over the annotation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the endpoint. Nothing extraneous; every element earns its place.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: it says what changes and how it is invoked. It nonetheless leaves out return behavior, reversibility, and what 'in progress' means in the workflow, which an agent would want for a destructive state change.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented, so the schema carries the load. The description only restates the parameter via the <Work_Order#> path token, adding no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides — 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Mark a work order in progress' names both the action and the object, and the PATCH path reinforces it. It is distinguishable from siblings like complete_work_order and create_work_order by the state transition it performs, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus complete_work_order, get_work_order, or create_work_order. The usage is only implied by the tool name and the state-change verb, leaving the agent to infer prerequisites.

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