update_work_order_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool writes to a live system and advises caution, which is the most important behavioral trait. It doesn't detail side effects beyond the status change, but the warning is strong and appropriate for a simple mutation.

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 no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the caution earns its place. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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 simple three-parameter mutation tool, the description plus schema covers purpose, required parameters, valid status values, and the live-write warning. No output schema exists, but the primary impact is the disclosed side effect. Minor gaps like error handling are not critical for this tool.

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 67%: status and memo are documented, while wonum is not. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but wonum is self-evident from the tool name and the schema's required list, so the schema carries the necessary meaning.

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 ('Update'), a specific resource ('work order status'), and the system ('MAS'), with concrete examples ('approve a WO, mark as in progress'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_* read-only tools.

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?

Provides clear context as the tool for changing work order status, and the caution ('use with caution — writes to your live MAS system') implies it should not be used for read operations. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but all siblings are read-only, so none exist.

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