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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is known — but the description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of side effects, that duplicate calls create duplicates (non-idempotent), auto-numbering behavior, or whether the created document is sent to anyone. For a destructive write with 7 params, this is thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient but arguably too short for the tool's complexity, which is a completeness issue rather than a structure one.

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 7 parameters, nested line items, no output schema, and destructive/non-idempotent annotations, the description should cover at minimum the create-vs-append workflow and what the tool returns (e.g., an id usable by send_change_order). None of that is present.

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 71% with nested item fields well documented, so the schema does most of the work. The description only gestures at line items and adds no meaning beyond the schema for kind, number, or date defaults — baseline 3 applies.

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 (creates) and resource (change order or change order request) scoped to a project, plus the notable inclusion of line items. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like add_change_order_items or update_change_order, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus add_change_order_items (for adding items later), update_change_order, or create_estimate. The change_order vs request choice is only explained inside the schema's kind enum, not in the description, so the agent gets no explicit routing advice.

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