create_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 only explains that a Change Request is created from workspace commits, with no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or how commits are selected. This is minimal, not misleading, but far from transparent.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for such a simple action, although brevity partially comes at the expense of useful context.

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?

For a controlling action with no annotations and no output schema, this definition is too thin. It should at least indicate that the workspace must have commits and that a rationale is required for the Change Request, so an agent can judge preconditions and mandatory inputs.

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 does not explain either workspace_id or rationale. Rationale is a required parameter, yet the description gives no hint of what rationale means, leaving providers without needed parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('create') and a distinct resource ('a Change Request'), and adds the source ('from the commits in a workspace'), so it is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_workspace and create_file. The action and object are 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 the usage: call this when a Change Request should be created from the commits in a workspace. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, contraindications, or when to prefer another tool, so guidance remains only implicit.

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