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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: partial-update semantics ('only changed values are needed'), validation failure mode (isError naming allowed options), and atomicity ('nothing is saved' on rejection) — all beyond what the structured fields provide.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, with the draft precondition front-loaded before the partial-update and error-handling details. Every clause carries information.

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?

As a mutation tool with no output schema, it needs to convey precondition, update semantics and failure behavior — and it does all three. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 83%, so the schema already documents fields, region, description, access_key and request_id. The description's only additional semantic is 'only changed values are needed', which is useful but minor against a parameter set the schema largely explains on its own.

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?

States a specific verb (changes) and resource (request) with an explicit scope constraint: only requests that are 'still a draft (the customer has not confirmed it)'. This clearly distinguishes it from create_request, submit_request and cancel_request, which operate at other lifecycle stages.

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 draft-only precondition tells the agent when this tool is applicable and implicitly routes post-confirmation edits elsewhere. It does not name an explicit alternative for non-draft requests, so it falls short of a 5, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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