Create Change Order Request

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

The description correctly indicates a write operation (creates) and returns the created object on success (HTTP 201). Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. No additional behavioral traits like permissions or side effects are disclosed, but the HTTP status and endpoint add some 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 concise (4-5 sentences) and front-loads the purpose. It includes essential information like required params and endpoint. While the endpoint detail may be useful, it slightly increases length but remains efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description mentions the return object. It does not explain error conditions, prerequisites, or how this request relates to contracts/projects. Given the complexity and many sibling tools, more contextual completeness would be helpful.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The description reiterates the required parameters but does not add detail about the change_order object's structure (e.g., allowed fields). The baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, and no extra meaning is 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 tool's function: creating a Change Order Request (COR) in Procore. It includes the API endpoint and HTTP status code. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_commitment_change_order or create_prime_change_order, which could lead to confusion.

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 mentions the required parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus others (e.g., when to use create_commitment_change_order). It lacks when-not-to-use or alternative tool recommendations.

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