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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that "Author is derived from the connection" (no author param needed), that the write is deferred behind a human approval gate in Settings > MCP, and that org-level MCP approval requirements plus business workflow approvals both apply. That deferred-execution model is exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent needs before calling a creation tool.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition and followed by the critical approval semantics. The opening clause is slightly boilerplate, but nothing is redundant or padded.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values and safety need no prose. However, for a nested, zero-documented payload with five required fields, the description leaves the agent to infer the entire data contract from raw JSON Schema.

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 single `data` parameter is a nested object with five required fields (siteId, requestNumber, title, scopeDescription, costImpact) plus several optional UUIDs and a costImpact regex. The description only clarifies the absence of an author field; it says nothing about what the nested fields mean, the cost format, or which are mandatory.

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+resource ("Create a change request") on RetailHardHat change_requests records, which cleanly separates it from update_change_request, delete_change_request, and list_change_requests. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the verb makes the intended operation unambiguous.

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?

"Use this when working with RetailHardHat change_requests records in the connected organization" sets the domain context, and the approval paragraph gives a clear precondition for the downstream workflow (execute_approved_action after human approval). No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is given, but the trigger condition is clear.

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