Update Change Order Request

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

Annotations already indicate it's not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it returns the modified object and uses PATCH (partial update), but these are implicit from the schema and context. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., authorization requirements, rate limits) are disclosed, so the description adds minimal value 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 concise (4 sentences) and well-structured: purpose, usage details, return value, required parameters, and API reference. It front-loads the main action and avoids unnecessary verbosity, making it easy to digest.

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 correctly states it returns the modified object on success. However, it lacks details about the 'change_order' parameter (which can have arbitrary properties) and doesn't cover failure scenarios. While sufficient for a straightforward update, the open-ended nature of the change_order object could lead to incomplete agent decisions.

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?

The input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description merely lists the required parameters without adding new meaning or context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 Request (COR)', specifying that it updates existing Change Orders with only supplied fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_change_order_package or update_commitment_change_order, which reduces clarity slightly.

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 explains when to use the tool ('update an existing Change Orders') and notes that only supplied fields are changed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or suggest alternative tools. The required parameters are listed, but no context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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