create_change

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool 'creates' a Change Request, indicating a mutation, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions required, what happens if the workspace has no commits, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. No wasted words. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, but for conciseness alone it earns a high score because it gets to the point quickly.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and two parameters with zero schema descriptions, the description is far too sparse to provide complete context. It omits information about prerequisites (e.g., an existing workspace with commits), the nature of the rationale field, how the commits are selected, and what the response contains. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional information.

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 has no descriptions for the two parameters (workspace_id and rationale). The description mentions 'commits in a workspace,' which gives some hint that workspace_id refers to a workspace containing commits, but it does not explain the purpose or format of rationale, nor does it clarify that both parameters are required. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to adequately define the parameters.

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 (create) and the resource (Change Request), and specifies the source (commits in a workspace). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project or create_workspace, which create different entities. The verb-resource pairing is specific and 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?

The description implies that the tool is used to create a Change Request from workspace commits, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools (e.g., update_change, merge_change, or list_changes). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical workflows, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

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