update_working_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the update requires confirmation, a useful safety-related trait. But it omits other behavioral details such as permissions, what happens if confirm is missing, or side effects, leaving notable gaps.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler, making it highly concise. However, it is almost too terse, omitting essential details, which slightly reduces its score relative to a perfectly balanced description.

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?

Given it is a mutation tool with a nested arbitrary update object and no annotations, the description is far too incomplete. It provides no information on permitted update fields, expected behavior, or response format, making it inadequate for safe and correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the confirm parameter (must be true), while deal_id and the arbitrary update object are left entirely unexplained, forcing the agent to guess their structure and purpose.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Update' and the clear resource 'an OTC working order', immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_working_order and delete_working_order. It leaves no doubt about the tool's core function.

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?

It states a concrete prerequisite ('Requires confirm=true') that must be satisfied for the operation to work, giving clear invocation context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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