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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no mention of required permissions, side effects, or whether the change is created in a draft state.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no waste. The purpose is stated first and the field hints follow immediately.

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 mutation tool whose input schema is an opaque free-form object, the description is too thin: it doesn't say which fields are required, what defaults apply, or what the created change looks like. The presence of an output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but the input side remains underspecified.

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?

The schema's single 'input' parameter is a free-form object (additionalProperties: {}) described only as 'Change fields', so it conveys almost no real semantics. The description partially compensates by naming common fields (name, content, entities_id, users_id_requester), which is genuine added value, but it omits required-vs-optional and field formats.

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 clear verb+resource ('Create a new change'), which an agent can distinguish from glpi_create_ticket, glpi_create_problem, and glpi_update_change. It does not, however, differentiate the scope or intent from closely related siblings beyond the resource noun.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as glpi_update_change or glpi_add_change_followup. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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