change_order

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool creates a professional document, requires sign-off, and protects from scope creep. However, it does not disclose what happens after creation (e.g., download, send, store) or any side effects. The behavior is generally safe but lacks full transparency.

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 with four sentences, front-loading the main action. Every sentence adds value: purpose, content of document, benefit, and note about draft limit. Could be slightly more streamlined, but overall well-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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It states it writes a document but doesn't specify format (e.g., text, PDF, download link). Given 6 parameters and the tool's nature, the description covers the input well but leaves output unclear.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema: it mentions 'additional cost and timeline impact' which map directly to parameters already well-described in the schema. No significant additional semantics provided.

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's purpose: writing a professional change order document when a client requests work outside the original project scope. It uses specific verbs and resource (change order document) and distinguishes from sibling tools like scope_change_email or scope_clarification_email by focusing on document generation rather than email communication.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (when client requests work outside original scope) and mentions it requires client sign-off. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings, such as scope_change_email for simpler notifications. Still, the context is clear enough for most agents.

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