clm_material_handover_command_change_material_handover_status

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

Discloses multiple side effects beyond the destructiveHint annotation: appends a new handover event with note and photos, updates the parent shipment's aggregated handover status, and queues a background thumbnail-generation job on pause. This gives an agent a clear model of what invoking the tool will change.

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, front-loaded with the primary state transition, then side effects in logical order. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

Covers the core action, side effects, and key parameters, and an output schema exists so return-value details are not needed. The only notable gap is the undocumented ItemId and somewhat implicit Status semantics, but an agent still has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 no per-property descriptions (0% coverage), and the description only partially compensates. It explains Note, MaterialPhotos, and ResponsiblePersonPhotos via 'note and photos' and the thumbnail job, and clarifies InProgress/Paused as Status values. However, ItemId is never explicitly explained, and there is no guidance on required vs optional fields.

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?

Description opens with 'Toggles a handover's status between InProgress and Paused,' naming the exact verb, resource, and allowed transitions. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like complete_material_handover and create_material_handover.

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 toggling language implies use for pausing or resuming a handover, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternative sibling tools. The existence of complete_material_handover makes this guidance more valuable, but it is only implied.

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