request_region_change

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the request goes through CMS and returns a support ticket number when accepted. It does not cover authorization needs, rate limits, or whether the change is asynchronous.

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?

Two concise sentences plus the endpoint are front-loaded with purpose and return behavior. There is no filler, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately states the return value: a support ticket number when the operation is accepted. For a mutation using a nested CMS body, it covers the core contract, though minor gaps remain around acceptance timing and asynchronous behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema documents the nested body fields region and method plus instanceId. The description does not add syntax, allowed values, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: requesting an instance region change, and identifies the POST endpoint and CMS. It is unique among the sibling tools, with no other region-change operation to confuse it with.

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 explains what the operation does but does not state when to choose it, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Because no sibling offers a comparable region-change operation, usage is implied, but explicit guidance is absent.

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