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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation and repeat-safety profile is covered structurally. The description usefully adds the change_orders:write authorization requirement, which is real context beyond the annotations, but it omits partial-update semantics (whether unspecified fields are preserved) for a 12-param update.

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, zero filler, and the operative information (update, by ID) is front-loaded before the scope requirement.

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 12-parameter mutation tool, the description plus rich schema and annotations cover the basics, but it omits update semantics (partial vs full replacement) and any consequence of the destructive flag beyond what the annotation implies. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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% with 12 fully documented parameters including a status enum, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. which fields are safe to change, meaning of negative amounts), consistent with the baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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'), resource ('change order'), and lookup key ('by ID'), which cleanly distinguishes it from create_change_order, delete_change_order, and get_change_order. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many update_* siblings in the list, so an agent still relies on the resource name to disambiguate.

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 description states only the mechanical precondition (must exist, updated by ID) and the required scope. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over bulk_update or update_* alternatives, nor any exclusion conditions.

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