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

Goes well beyond the sparse annotations by disclosing concrete behavior: it stamps the date and note, only allows forward status moves, and refuses backwards steps, unsent approvals, and backdated moves. These are meaningful behavioral constraints that help an agent predict outcomes and failure modes.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the core action and then pack in the key constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 mutating status tool with no output schema, the description covers allowed transitions, refusal conditions, and side effects. It leaves minor unknowns such as the exact return value, but nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 adds value by tying the date and note parameters to the stamping behavior and by making status-transition rules explicit, such as 'backdated move refused' and 'unsent approval refused'.

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 ('Move one change order along') and enumerates the exact allowed status transitions. The described status workflow makes it clearly distinct from siblings like change_order_create, change_order_delete, and change_order_get.

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 conveys when it is appropriate to advance a change order through its workflow and which transitions are refused. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when to choose this tool over siblings like change_order_create or change_order_delete; the usage must be inferred.

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