rebase_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (rebase) but does not disclose whether the rebase is destructive to local commits, whether it can fail due to conflicts, what happens to the existing branch history, or what the success/result looks like. For a mutating operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency 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?

A single, well-formed sentence with zero filler words. The core action and target are stated up front, and there is no redundant phrase that merely restates the tool name. It is an efficient, front-loaded definition.

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?

Rebase is a non-trivial operation with real consequences (history rewriting, potential conflicts), yet with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves outcomes, failure modes, and side effects completely unexplained. An agent cannot anticipate what happens on conflict, whether the operation is reversible, or what a successful call returns. The definition is too thin for the complexity of the operation.

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 description never mentions change_id. The identity of the parameter is implied by the sentence ('Rebase a Change Request...'), which helps an agent infer that change_id refers to the change whose branch is being rebased. However, with zero coverage the description should compensate more explicitly, and it adds no format, semantics, or context beyond what the schema's bare name provides.

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 specifies a precise verb (Rebase), a concrete resource (a Change Request's workspace branch), and a clear target (current default branch). It tells an agent exactly what action is performed and on what. The phrasing naturally distinguishes this from merge_change (merges a branch) and update_change (modifies change metadata), since rebasing onto the default branch is a uniquely described operation.

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 a use case — bringing a change request's branch up to date with the default branch — but never explicitly states when to choose rebase over its sibling alternatives like merge_change or update_change. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions given. An agent gets enough to understand the operation's general purpose but no explicit routing guidance among the many sibling change-management tools.

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