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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the operation records a proposal only and deliberately leaves scope, rates, and deadlines untouched. It does not describe the downstream approval flow or what the call returns, but the critical side-effect boundary is disclosed.

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?

Opens with the core action, immediately bounds the behavior, then lists per-kind requirements. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 an output schema handling return values and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the purpose, the behavioral boundary, and the conditional parameter rules an agent needs to invoke it. Minor omissions (relationship to approve_change_order, engagementId) are tolerable given the surrounding structured data.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does so well by enumerating the conditional per-kind requirements (add_work, discount_rate, add_rate, move_deadline) that the flat schema cannot express. It adds little on the always-required engagementId/summary or the meaning of amountMinor ('lower'), leaving some gaps.

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 ('Record a proposed change order') and clarifies it is a proposal, not an application. This implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling approve_change_order, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 statement 'does not change scope, rates, or deadlines' signals when this tool is appropriate versus the direct-mutation siblings (save_rate, save_deadline, save_scope_item), giving clear context. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives or stating when-not to use it.

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