Create Change Order Request

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: HTTP 201 success, error payloads with common statuses (401, 403, 404), and the implication that creating is non-idempotent. This explains error handling and permissions without contradicting any annotations.

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 efficient and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, then covering non-idempotence, error behavior, required parameters, and endpoint in a few sentences. It is slightly dense but every sentence contributes useful information.

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 the nested change_order object and lack of output schema, the description is only partially complete. It covers purpose, errors, and required params, but does not explain the structure of change_order or detail the response body beyond returning an id, leaving the agent to guess about the object's fields.

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 only repeats the required parameter names without adding details about the change_order object structure or ID formats. It provides no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already offers.

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 that the tool creates a change order request, returns it with its new id, and explicitly notes that calling it again creates another record. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_change_order_requests and update_change_order_request.

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 clearly implies the tool is for creating new change order requests, and the 'calling it again creates another record' note helps clarify it is not for updating or fetching. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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