Record inspection result

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

It adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: 'Nobody is notified', and that notes are replaced rather than appended (corrections the inspector asked for). It also states the return ('the inspection as saved'), which matters since there is no output schema. It stops short of permissions/authorization context, so not a full 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome; no filler. There is mild redundancy between sentence one and the opening of sentence two ('passed, failed or to re-inspect' vs 'pass, fail, re_inspect'), which costs a point but the surplus is minor.

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 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the side effects (notes replacement, no notifications), and the return shape. Remaining gaps (permissions, what 'saved' object fields look like) are modest given the annotation coverage.

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 67% and the 'result' enum has no schema description; the description compensates by spelling out all four enum meanings including 'draft' as going back to draft. It also disambiguates 'notes' as a replacement of the inspector's correction notes, though it adds nothing about the inspection_id parameter (covered by the schema).

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 names a specific verb (marks/sets the status of) and resource (a Contractor Foreman inspection) and enumerates the exact resulting states: pass, fail, re_inspect, or back to draft. That makes it trivially separable from siblings like get_inspection, create_inspection, and list_inspections.

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 gives an implicit mental model ('as the status field on its page does') that tells an agent this is the status-update path, but it never states when to prefer it over reading (get_inspection) or creating, nor any precondition such as needing an existing inspection_id from list_inspections. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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