transition_work_order

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent), so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by disclosing the role-based authorization rules for each transition group. It does not elaborate on irreversibility or side effects of cancel/reopen, which would have pushed it to a 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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and authorization constraint front-loaded before the sibling redirect. 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 a full output schema, complete annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description only needed to carry the routing and permission context, which it does. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents work_order_id, actor, to_status, and the note requirement. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what is in the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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+resource ('Move a work order along its life cycle') and immediately scopes the set of transitions. It explicitly separates itself from sibling assign_work_order, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Names the alternative route for open -> assigned ('Use assign_work_order for open -> assigned') and gives the permission conditions that select between transition paths (assignee/supervisor can start, hold, complete; only supervisor can close, cancel, unassign, reopen). When-to-use and when-not are both explicit.

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