confirm_work_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that the call is idempotent by key, that retries should reuse idem_key to avoid double-filing, and that 'edit' cancels before refiling, which is a destructive side effect. It omits what happens on an invalid answer, what authorization the 'owner' requires, and what a call returns.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its branch semantics before the idempotency note. Every sentence adds information, and none repeats structured fields.

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 an unannotated, four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the state machine, the side effects of each branch, and retry safety. Remaining gaps are the return value (which may be unnecessary, since no output schema exists) and the relationship to file_work_order.

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, and it does: it defines the enumerated values of answer, which fill a real gap left by the untyped string enum in the schema. It also explains idem_key's retry semantics and implies amendments' role via 'edit...refile with amendments.' Only the work_order parameter is left unstated, though its meaning is clear.

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: answering a draft work order's confirmation. The three answer branches are spelled out precisely. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the sibling file_work_order, which an agent could plausibly confuse with it.

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 description explains what each answer value does (go queues, no cancels, edit cancels and refiles), which effectively guides the caller through the decision branches. But it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like file_work_order, and no prerequisites beyond the implicit notion that the owner is the one answering.

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