apri_ordine_lavoro

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares this is a write operation, that the result is a DRAFT work order, and that approval/closure/assignment happen elsewhere. It omits permission requirements and what is returned (e.g. the new order ID), which keeps it from 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?

Three short sentences, no waste; the creation statement is front-loaded, followed by the confirmation requirement and then the exclusions. Every sentence 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 simple three-required-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers state semantics, write safety, and scope boundaries. The only gap is the absence of any indication of what a successful call returns (e.g. an order identifier).

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% and the enum for 'tipo' is self-explanatory, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 and resource ('Crea un ordine di lavoro') plus the initial state ('in stato BOZZA') and the target system (CMMS). An agent can distinguish this from every listed sibling, none of which create work orders.

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 an explicit pre-condition ('chiedi sempre conferma esplicita prima di usarla') and delimits scope by naming what it does NOT do (approve, close, assign). It stops short of naming alternatives for those excluded actions, but no sibling overlaps so the guidance is effectively complete.

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