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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description usefully adds the required write scope, but says nothing about non-idempotency implications (e.g., duplicate co_number handling) or the response.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the scope prerequisite is stated plainly. Slightly terse for a nine-parameter mutation tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 nine-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate: purpose and scope are covered and annotations carry safety. It omits any note on creation side effects, uniqueness of co_number, or what is returned.

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 all nine parameters (including required vs optional, negative-for-credits amount semantics, and enums) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that baseline.

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 change order'), which clearly distinguishes it from the many other create_* siblings by resource type. However, it offers no explicit contrast against the create_/update_change_order/delete_change_order family beyond the resource name.

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 only guidance is a scope requirement ('Requires change_orders:write scope'), which is a prerequisite rather than a when-to-use cue. There is no mention of when to choose this over bulk_create, update_change_order, or other creation paths.

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