Update Change Order Package

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed (aligning with open world) and returns the modified object on success. It also provides the API endpoint and required parameters, which adds context beyond 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 three sentences long with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes essential details (partial update, return behavior, required params, API reference). Every sentence adds value.

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 mentions that the modified object is returned. For an update tool with 4 parameters and annotations, the description is fairly complete. It could benefit from mentioning error handling or typical response format, but it is adequate.

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 has 4 parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds value by explicitly listing the required parameters (id, project_id, change_order) and noting that the change_order is a partial update. This helps the agent understand which parameters are essential beyond schema constraints.

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 'update' and the resource 'Change Order Package'. It specifies that it updates existing change orders, only supplied fields are changed, and returns the modified object. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_change_order_package or show_change_order_package.

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 says 'Use this to update an existing Change Orders' which indicates the context for use (updating vs creating or viewing). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or failure conditions.

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