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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds field-level mutation scope by naming the attributes that can change, but it does not add context about reversibility, permissions, or side effects beyond that.

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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no padding or repetition. It is efficient, though its terseness leaves several semantic gaps that are better assessed under other dimensions.

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 destructive mutation tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not compensate for low schema description coverage, omits the 'description' field, and leaves the 'reason' mismatch unresolved, so an agent must rely heavily on schema and annotations.

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 only 20%, so the description should compensate, but it only lists field names. It mentions 'reason' while the schema exposes a 'description' parameter, creating a semantic mismatch, and it gives no detail on the status enum, date format, or title constraints.

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?

The description uses a specific verb (Changes) and resource (a change order), and it names the fields affected. It is clear enough to distinguish from create/delete/get/list siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'Changes'; there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_change_order, delete_change_order, or send_change_order. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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