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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false but give no nuance about the write's side effects. The description adds real behavioral context: default state is draft, only active orders are invoiceable, it 'reaches no client, so it runs without asking first' (no external notification/confirmation), and it needs a Cotlet API key with app access. That is disclosure beyond 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 core constraint (draft vs active, invoiceability) is front-loaded, but the definition restates its purpose redundantly ('Add a change order to a fixed price job ... Adds a change order to a fixed price job'), wasting a sentence. Structure is otherwise acceptable.

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?

There is no output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, state behavior, the invoiceability constraint, external-reach behavior, and auth requirements, which is sufficient for a 4-param mutation tool. Minor gaps: no mention of whether an existing job must exist or error behavior.

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. The description additionally gives meaning to make_active that the schema lacks: it explains the default draft state and the downstream consequence that only an active order can be invoiced, which clarifies why an agent would set the flag.

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+resource ('Add a change order to a fixed price job') and scopes it to fixed-price jobs, which is meaningful for a job-domain tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling change-order tools in other integrations (buildertrend_create_change_order, contractor-foreman_create_change_order), but the purpose 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?

The description explains the draft-vs-active workflow ('It is a draft unless make_active is true, and only an active change order can be invoiced'), which is implicit guidance on when to set make_active. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use conditions relative to sibling tools.

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