Create change order

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

Annotations already declare the write/safe/non-idempotent profile, and the description adds real context beyond them: the resulting status (open for change orders, draft for requests), that the app computes the total, and that nothing is emailed. It does not address duplicate-number behavior despite idempotentHint=false, which is the one meaningful gap.

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 core action and the no-send guarantee are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the total length is appropriate for a seven-parameter create tool. The middle sentence about items is a dense parenthetical list that is slightly run-on but still readable.

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?

For a create tool with nested line items and no output schema, the description covers the important semantics: what gets created, what status it lands in, how totals are derived, and that nothing is dispatched. The only missing piece is what the call returns (presumably the created change order with computed total), which an agent must infer.

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 a moderate 71% and the description largely restates what the schema already says about items (name, type, quantity, unit, unit cost in dollars, markup percent, cost code). The one genuine addition is 'description records the reason', but parameters like date, number, and kind are already documented in-schema, so this sits at the baseline.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb (creates) and resource (change order / change order request) with the key qualifier 'with line items'. The second sentence distinguishes the two variants by resulting status (open vs draft), and the closing sentence names the two adjacent tools (send_change_order, update_change_order) so an agent can place this tool in the workflow without opening the schema.

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 last sentence explicitly routes the agent: 'Nothing is sent. send_change_order emails it after your OK, update_change_order sets the status' — a clear statement of what this tool does not do and which sibling does it. However there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites (project must exist, cost codes must be listed first) or exclusions beyond the send/update split.

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