create_work_order

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds that the created work order starts in 'open' status, which is useful outcome context. It does not disclose what happens on a duplicate attempt (error vs. silent create), permission requirements, or rate limits.

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, no filler, with the primary action stated first and the duplicate-avoidance prerequisite second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description only needs to cover purpose and preconditions, which it does. The main gap is the undefined duplicate-handling behavior, which matters for a non-idempotent create that warns about duplicates.

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 100%, so every parameter (actor, title, asset_id, wo_type, due_date, priority, description, source_alarm_id) is already documented with constraints and enums. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Create a new work order') plus the resulting state ('status open'), so the agent knows exactly what entity is produced. It also names a sibling (list_work_orders) and explains its relationship, which helps separate creation from listing.

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?

Gives an explicit pre-step: check list_work_orders for the asset first to avoid duplicates. That is actionable context, but there is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives for updating an existing work order (e.g. transition_work_order, assign_work_order).

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