merge_change

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

With no annotations, the description necessarily carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core mutating behavior (merging into the default branch) and the eligibility requirements (approved, conflict-free). It does not state consequences such as irreversibility, failure modes when preconditions are not met, or permissions needed.

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 front-loaded sentence carries all the essential information: what is merged, under what conditions, and into what target. 'approved, conflict-free' is a necessary constraint and is not wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the core action and its preconditions but leaves unknown the outcome, error behavior, and the consequences of modifying the default branch. Given that this is a branch-history mutation, this gap matters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the single change_id parameter. It does so by identifying the resource as an approved, conflict-free Change Request, implying change_id is that Change Request's identifier. Yet it never explicitly says where the ID comes from or what format it has, so some inference from sibling tools like list_changes is still required.

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 ('Merge') and a specific resource ('Change Request') and states the exact integration target ('the project's default branch'). This clearly distinguishes merge_change from sibling tools like approve_change, apply_conflict_resolution, and check_mergeability, which handle earlier stages.

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?

It states necessary preconditions ('approved, conflict-free'), so an agent can infer that this tool should be used after approval and conflict checks. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the selection of the correct sibling to inference.

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