update_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. It discloses that the operation mutates (updates rationale and refreshes head revision) but does not explain side effects, reversibility, required change state, or any potential impact on other resources. For a mutation tool, 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 sentence with no redundant wording. The action is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what happens after the update, but it only states the action. It doesn't describe return values, success/failure behavior, or any prerequisites. For a simple update tool, it is incomplete but not severely lacking.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'rationale' and 'head revision' but does not explain the change_id parameter (which is required) or the rationale's acceptable format/optionality (though the schema shows it's nullable). It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb ('update') with a specific resource ('a Change Request') and lists the exact actions (update rationale, refresh head revision). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_change, get_change, or abandon_change. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other change-management tools (e.g., review_change, approve_change, merge_change). No prerequisites, constraints, or conditions for invocation are mentioned. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen.

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