Create Change Order Package

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly states that calling again creates another record, returns HTTP 201 with the new id, and explains common failure statuses (401, 403, 404). This goes well beyond what the annotations already convey and gives the agent actionable expectations.

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 four sentences, each adding distinct value: the action and result, non-idempotency, error handling, and required parameters. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no fluff or repetition of structured data.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description covers the key return behavior (new id) and error semantics, which is sufficient for a create operation. It also lists required parameters and the API endpoint, making the tool usable without needing additional context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description merely lists required parameters (project_id, contract_id, change_order) without adding any new meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions. No extra format, constraints, or relationships are provided.

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 clearly states the verb ('Creates') and the resource ('change order package in Procore'), and specifies the outcome (returns with new id). It is unambiguous but does not explicitly differentiate from related sibling tools like create_change_order_request or create_commitment_change_order, so it misses the 'distinguishes from siblings' criterion for a 5.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It mentions required parameters and the endpoint, but does not state use cases, exclusions, or contrast with sibling tools. The only implied usage is from the verb itself, which is not sufficient.

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