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

Annotations cover the safety profile (mutating, idempotent, destructive), and the description adds meaningful context on top: the required APPROVED state, the authorization requirement, and the ENTERPRISE+ feature gate. It does not explain failure behavior or why the operation is flagged destructive, but it clearly exceeds what the annotations alone convey.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: action and target state first, then permissions, then feature gating. No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter state-transition mutation with no output schema, the description covers the transition, authorization, and feature entitlement. It omits return/error semantics, but annotations already carry the safety profile, leaving only minor gaps.

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 0% for the single changeRequestId parameter, so the description could have compensated but does not — no format or sourced-from hint (e.g., get_change_request / list_change_requests). The name is largely self-explanatory and the description ties it implicitly to an approved CR, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb ('Mark ... as IMPLEMENTED') plus resource (change request) plus a precise state precondition (APPROVED). An agent can distinguish this from create_change_request, submit_change_request, submit_cr_review, and withdraw_change_request purely from the description.

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?

States a clear precondition ('APPROVED') and the caller eligibility rule (project Owner/Manager or org CCB member), which effectively scopes when the tool may be used. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for other lifecycle stages, so it stops short of a 5.

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