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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral load. It does disclose the state-transition constraint and the authorization model (worker or office), which is real value. However it says nothing about idempotency, what happens if the visit is already started, side effects such as timestamp stamping or customer notifications, or what is returned.

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, the state constraint front-loaded, no filler. It is efficient but borders on terse given the mutation involved, so not a top score.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers precondition and actor but leaves the outcome and failure modes unstated. An agent knows when to call it but not what calling it actually changes.

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 0% for the single parameter and the description never mentions visit_id. The schema only supplies type uuid and required, so the description contributes nothing about which visit identifier to pass or where it comes from. Only the self-evident name keeps this above the floor.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a visit started'. The parenthetical lists the permitted source states (scheduled, on the way, arrived), which sharpens the purpose beyond the name alone. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like visits_arrived or visits_done, so an agent must infer which state transition belongs where.

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 preconditions — the visit must be scheduled, on the way, or arrived — and states who may invoke it (the assigned worker or the office). It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so no explicit exclusion guidance exists.

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