Sync Change Order Requests

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive (destructiveHint false) and non-idempotent (idempotentHint false). The description adds value by revealing batch behavior and partial updates, but omits details like error handling for batch failures or concurrency semantics.

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 three sentences plus extra API reference lines, front-loading the core purpose. It is reasonably concise but includes endpoint details that could be seen as verbose for an agent; still clear and structured.

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 batch nature and lack of output schema, the description should explain return values more (it only says 'returns the modified object') and discuss handling of partial failures. It provides enough for basic use but lacks completeness for complex scenarios.

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?

Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description merely restates the required parameters without adding new meaning or format details for the 'updates' array, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 creates or updates a batch of Change Order Requests (COR), using specific verbs 'creates or updates' and identifies the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_change_order_request' and 'update_change_order_request' by explicitly mentioning 'batch' and the unique endpoint.

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 instructs to use this for updating existing change orders with only supplied fields changed, providing clear usage context. It references additional documentation but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or list alternatives like individual CRUD tools for Change Order Requests.

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