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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already flags this as a mutating call, and the description usefully adds the partial-update contract ("Only the fields you pass are sent"), which is not in the annotations. However, it does not explain what archive does to the order, whether changes are reversible, or any permission requirements — meaningful gaps for a destructive operation.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its editable surface, with no filler. Minor redundancy in repeating the Estimate/RepairOrder/Invoice enum values already defined in the schema, and the trailing API path adds only marginal value.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the operation's scope and partial-update semantics well, and the schema carries the per-field detail. Missing only edge behaviors (archive effects, failure modes) that an agent would want before archiving a work order.

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 every one of the 12 parameters is already documented in the schema, including the status enum and the workflowStatusId cross-reference. The description restates a subset of fields but adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 then enumerates exactly which aspects can be changed: workflow status, status, complaint/recommendation, due date, service writer, or archive. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like shopmonkey_create_order or shopmonkey_update_customer without opening any schema.

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 (modify an existing order) and "Only the fields you pass are sent" signals partial-update behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no named alternatives (e.g. use shopmonkey_get_order first, or create_order for new work). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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