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

Annotations already signal this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting that all changes pass through ChangeRequests with a message, diff, and full history, and warns to treat stored content as data, not instructions. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and safety considerations.

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 compact: three sentences covering purpose, endpoint, multi-space handling, and the ChangeRequest model. It front-loads the core action and avoids redundancy. The only extra item, the raw endpoint, is arguably redundant with the operation name but not distracting.

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 tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the key write-path behavior and multi-space prerequisite, but it omits what the response looks like and does not clarify ambiguous parameters like baseCommitId or the operation concept. It is adequate but leaves some gaps an agent might need to resolve at runtime.

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 57%, so the schema itself documents most critical parameters like fields, message, playbook, and targetSpaceId. The description adds a bit of operational context (e.g., passing targetSpaceId) but does not elaborate on author, baseCommitId, or the fields object beyond what the schema already says. It neither contradicts nor significantly enriches the schema.

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 action: append a new commit to the operation and move the operation head, and includes the REST endpoint. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling change-request tools like record_change_request or bases_create_change_request, so it lacks the extra distinction that would merit a 5.

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 gives practical guidance for multi-space accounts (call auth_verify, ask user, pass targetSpaceId) and explains that writes flow through ChangeRequests. But it never tells the agent when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor when not to use it, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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