draft_change_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this saves a draft and involves an approval gate, but it does not disclose whether existing drafts are overwritten, whether the project must already exist, what happens on validation failure, or what side effects are triggered.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and adds one clarifying constraint, which is appropriately concise for a tool description.

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?

The tool has nine parameters, several with defaults or nullable fields, zero schema description coverage, and no annotations. The one-sentence description is far too thin to guide an agent in selecting and populating this tool correctly, even with an output schema available.

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 0%, and the description names no parameters. It says 'structured lines' but does not clarify required identifiers like project_id and evidence_ids, currency defaults, or how the approval gate relates to the line items. With nine parameters, this is not nearly enough compensation.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Save a draft change order') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like draft_estimate and draft_daily_log by naming the change-order resource. The phrase 'structured lines and an approval gate' adds useful purpose-level detail.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to choose this over draft_estimate or record_site_evidence beyond the resource name itself.

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