aras_create_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the number is auto-generated by Aras and not to be provided, and that affected items must be created inline. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response contains. The description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 concise, with three sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add critical usage constraints. Every sentence adds value, though the inline affected item note could be more structured.

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's complexity (6 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the key creation logic and the critical constraint about inline affected items. However, it lacks information about return values, error handling, or prerequisites like permissions. It's adequate but not complete for a tool that creates change objects.

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 33%, meaning most parameters lack descriptions. The description clarifies that 'tipo' selects ECR or ECN and that 'impattati' are affected items created inline. It also notes that 'proposed_solution' is only for ECR and 'implementation_plan' only for ECN, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain 'title' or 'description' beyond their names, and the schema already provides defaults and enums.

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 tool creates an ECR or ECN with its impacted items, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings like aras_create_item and aras_add_affected_item by focusing on the change object creation with inline affected items.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: to create a change (ECR/ECN) with impacted items. It implicitly distinguishes from aras_add_affected_item by noting that affected items are created inline within the relationship, which is the only working method. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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