Create Potential Change Order

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds minimal behavioral info: it creates and returns a 201 status. It does not mention idempotency, side effects, permission requirements, or what happens on failure. With annotations present, the bar is lower but still insufficient.

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 and includes purpose, usage, required params, and API context. However, there is redundancy: 'Create a new Potential Change Order (PCO)' and 'Use this to create a new Change Orders in Procore' convey the same idea. The grammar is slightly off ('Creates a new Change Orders'). It could be more concise.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not explain return format beyond HTTP status. The 'change_order' parameter is an opaque object with no details in schema or description. The endpoint and API section info are helpful, but the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to correctly formulate the request body.

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% for all three parameters. The description only lists the required parameters by name, which is already in the schema. It adds no explanation for the 'change_order' object, which has no defined properties in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate, but the description could have added value by describing expected fields in the change_order object.

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 it creates a 'Potential Change Order (PCO)' in Procore, including the HTTP 201 response. However, it does not differentiate this from other change order creation tools like 'create_change_order_package' or 'create_commitment_change_order', which are siblings. The purpose is specific enough for an agent to understand the resource type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply says 'Use this to create a new Change Orders in Procore' but lacks context about prerequisites, when not to use it, or what distinguishes it from other change order tools in the sibling list.

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