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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: merge-vs-replace semantics and the non-obvious side effect that completing a work order may fire integrations such as Zapier. It omits permission requirements and whether the response returns the updated record, keeping it below a 5.

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 a 'WRITE:' marker and the resource, then semantics, then side effects, then scope limits. No sentence restates the name or wastes tokens.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the mutation model, side effects, and what the tool cannot do. The only remaining gap is auth/permission expectations and failure behavior, which is minor given well-documented params.

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 57%, so the schema documents the tricky params (due_date ISO 8601, priority scale, work_order_id format) itself. The description mirrors the mutable field list and repeats the status enum but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what is already structured, so 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 (change fields of an existing work order), enumerates exactly which fields are mutable, and names the HTTP verb/path (PATCH /work-orders/{id}). This clearly separates it from upkeep_create_work_order and upkeep_get_work_order without the agent opening a 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?

Gives clear operating context: partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass change') and an explicit exclusion ('Archiving and deleting are not offered'). It stops short of naming the sibling tool that does handle deletion or creation, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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