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

The description states that this is a create operation, returning a number and several fields, and adds the free-tier constraint '5 open'. It does not describe duplicate handling or the first-change-order requirement for original_value_minor, but it does not contradict any annotations and provides relevant operational context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, target, output, and an important constraint. Every part earns its place without unnecessary technical detail.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no positive annotation hints, the description covers the core purpose, return contents, and a quota constraint. It could add behavior on duplicates or when original_value_minor is required, but the schema already covers those parameter-level details.

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 (89%), so the input schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that the return value includes the reference, client, title, date, and original contract value in minor units, but it does not deeply explain any input parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a clear, specific action: raise a change order against a quote or work order, and identifies the key output (CO-YYYY-NNNN number). It differentiates this create action from sibling tools like change_order_add_line or change_order_delete by focusing on creation and the returned number.

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 makes clear when to use the tool: to create a new change order against a quote or work order. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer the tool's role among the change_order_* siblings.

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