Submit a complete close-out note for a work order by validating all required fields upfront, preventing incomplete or rejected ERP submissions.
Submit a close-out note with all required fields. Validates every field; raises rather than submitting incomplete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | ||
| wo_number | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes validation ('raises rather than submitting incomplete'), which is useful, but does not disclose whether this is a destructive write, what permissions are required, whether it can be called multiple times, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.
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 with zero waste, front-loading the action and the validation behavior. It could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, but it is appropriately sized for the tool.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical context: it does not explain prerequisites (e.g., work order must be in a closeable state), consequences of submission, or error conditions beyond validation failure. The nested schema compensates for parameter details but not for operational context.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage at the top level, but the nested $defs.CloseoutFields is richly described with per-field descriptions and required lists, so the parameter semantics are largely self-documenting. The description itself adds no new parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's internal documentation.
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 states a clear verb+resource: submitting a close-out note. It is distinguishable from its read-only siblings (get_work_order, list_pending_work) by being the sole write operation. However, it gives no indication of the domain context (field-service work orders) that would make the target entity 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites stated, and no mention of what happens after submission or when a work order is ready for close-out. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.