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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds some context by noting the draft-change-order scope and that each line carries a reason and date. It does not disclose failure modes, draft-status enforcement, or post-add effects, so the behavioral disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 description is one dense, front-loaded sentence that states the action and its variants without filler. The standalone 'Free.' is minimal and communicates an additional operational fact without bloating the definition.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core usage pattern but omits details like the operation's result, what happens if the change order is not draft, or how ambiguity in the change_order reference is resolved. The strong schema mitigates but does not fully close this gap.

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 high (91%), and the schema already documents each parameter, including kind-specific fields like was_quantity and was_unit_price_minor. The description adds a useful grouping of added/removed versus changed parameters, but the schema carries most of the semantic burden.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Add one line to a draft change order.' It also enumerates the allowed line kinds (added, removed, changed), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling operations like create or delete.

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 clearly identifies when to use this tool: when adding a line to a draft change order, and covers the three line kinds. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but none of the sibling tools overlaps with this exact operation.

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