schedule_work_order

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

Annotations declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, and the description usefully adds atomic failure semantics ('Fails (and changes nothing) if the slot overlaps'), which also clarifies why retrying is not idempotent. It omits what is returned and what happens if the work order or resource id is invalid.

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 with the booking action front-loaded and the failure condition immediately after. Nothing is padded.

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 4-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the conflict case well and annotations cover the safety profile. However, it never says what a successful booking produces (an id? a block?) or how 'hours' is interpreted relative to 'start', leaving an agent to guess at the result.

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 only 25% — only 'start' is documented (ISO format). The description says nothing about work_order_id, resource_id, or the meaning/limits of 'hours' (schema caps it at 24, exclusive of 0), so the coverage gap is left unaddressed.

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 ('Book a resource for a work order'), which is clearly separable from siblings like cancel_block and find_next_slot. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus find_next_slot (presumably the tool that locates a free slot first) or how it relates to an existing block. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'Book'.

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