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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes beyond them: it discloses the side effect that the parent request auto-completes once all nodes complete, plus the enforced state machine. It leaves out permission requirements and error behavior on illegal transitions.

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 tight sentences: the action is front-loaded, the transition rule and the cascade side effect follow with no filler. Every clause 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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, valid values, and the cascade effect on the request. It is nearly complete; only auth/error semantics for invalid transitions are absent.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the raw enum by specifying the permitted transition order, telling the agent which enum values are valid from a given current state. requestId and nodeId semantics still come only from the schema.

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 and resource ('Update the status of a capability node within a request'), clearly distinct from sibling mutations like pcc_assign_node_operator or update_job_status. It does not name an alternative sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The valid transition chain (pending → bidding → assigned → in_progress → completed/failed) implicitly tells the agent when an update is legal, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of who may perform transitions, and no routing to alternative tools.

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