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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds valuable context: the tool refuses non-draft or line-carrying orders, and the number is not reissued. This goes beyond annotations and gives a clear picture of behavioral edge cases, though it doesn't describe the success response or side effects beyond freeing a slot.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste. The primary action and its precondition are front-loaded, followed by exclusions and the alternative. Every sentence earns its 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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: what qualifies (draft, no lines), what is refused (other states or lines), the recommended alternative, and a key consequence (number not reissued). No further information is needed for an agent to decide correctly.

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 100% and the single parameter 'change_order' is already well-documented in the schema (id or title). The description adds no extra parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, which is appropriate given the high coverage. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Delete'), a specific resource (a DRAFT change order with no lines), and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'change_order_status' by explicitly routing non-draft or line-carrying orders to voiding. This is unambiguous and differentiates from siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool (delete a draft with no lines), when not to (sent, approved, rejected, voided, or has lines), and the alternative action (void with change_order_status). Also notes the consequence that the number is not reissued, giving clear conditions for use.

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