Update work order status

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: nobody is emailed, the returned status is the company's label, and the tool returns the work order as saved. It does not mention permission requirements, but with annotations present the bar is lower.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and states the operation and allowed statuses. The following sentences add useful behavior with little waste, though listing the status values duplicates the schema enum.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential operation, return behavior, and side-effect expectation. It could be stronger by explicitly tying work_order_id back to list_work_orders or noting any permission constraints.

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 50%: work_order_id is documented in the schema as coming from list_work_orders, and status is an enum. The description repeats the status values but adds little beyond the enum, and it does not elaborate on work_order_id. This is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 a specific verb and resource: it moves/sets a work order's status, and it names the exact status values. This makes the operation distinguishable from sibling tools such as get_work_order, list_work_orders, and create_work_order.

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 implies the tool is used to change an existing work order's status, and the schema points to list_work_orders for the ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_work_order, list_work_orders, or create_work_order, and it gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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