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

Annotations only tell us it is a non-destructive write with open-world reach; the description adds substantial context: the order is saved unreleased, the client sees nothing until release, the confirmation behavior can be toggled, the call reaches other people, and it needs a scoped API key. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 unreleased/client-sees-nothing point is stated twice, and the confirmation requirement appears in two separate sentences, creating redundancy. It is still front-loaded and readable, but a couple of sentences do not fully earn their place.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow state, side effects, auth requirement, and confirmation behavior an agent needs. It omits what the call returns (e.g., the new order ID), which would complete the picture, but otherwise it is solid.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining how the total is computed from line_items (quantity times unit cost plus markup percent). It does not add syntax detail for the other parameters, so it is above baseline but not exhaustive.

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 ('Creates a change order on one job') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling release_change_order by explaining it leaves the order unreleased. An agent can tell it apart from buildertrend_release_change_order without opening either schema.

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?

It identifies the related workflow step and the alternative ('until release_change_order') and notes the confirmation default. However, it stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use rule or fully spelling out the release handoff condition, so it is clear context rather than complete routing guidance.

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