rebase_change

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It tells the agent this is a rebase operation, but does not mention that rebasing rewrites history, can be destructive to local workspace state, may produce conflicts, or that the operation likely mutates the change request. This lack of warning is risky for an operation of this nature.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the key action and target. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

Although the input shape is simple, this is a potentially destructive and history-rewriting mutation. The description does not mention conflict handling, available workspace states, whether the change request must be active, or what the expected outcome is. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent is left without enough behavioral context to call this safely in all situations.

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 one required parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate by explicitly explaining what change_id refers to. The description only indirectly implies that change_id identifies a Change Request; it does not define the format, source, or any relationship to the workspace branch. For one visually self-descriptive parameter, this gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 (rebase), the resource (a Change Request's workspace branch), and the target (the current default branch). It is sufficiently specific to differentiate rebase_change from sibling tools like merge_change or update_change, even without naming them.

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 when the tool is useful: when a change request's workspace branch needs rebasing onto the current default branch. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist, such as merge_change or check_mergeability, so some inference is required.

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