Create change request

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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotency/destructive/open-world profile, so the description only needs to add context — and it mostly does not. It documents exception behavior (MissingParameterError, ParameterError), which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but the claim that name_value_pairs is required contradicts the schema, where it and all 21 other parameters default to null, creating confusion rather than transparency. No side effects, auth needs, or downstream impacts are described.

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 body is a raw Python docstring dump with :param/:type/:return/:raises markers that carry little meaning for an agent, and the parameter block is partial rather than a deliberate selection. The only truly front-loaded content is the single opening sentence; the rest is unstructured reference text.

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 22-parameter write operation with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition should explain far more about which parameters matter and how the required payload is shaped. It gives a vague one-line return note and partial, self-contradictory parameter hints, leaving the agent under-equipped to construct a valid call.

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% across 22 parameters, so the description must carry the burden, but it covers only three of them (name_value_pairs, change_type, standard_change_template_id). Nineteen parameters — including state, sysparm_query, sysparm_limit, response_length, and refresh_impacted_services — are left completely unexplained, and several look like generic query parameters that do not obviously belong on a 'create' tool.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new change request'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many nearby create_* siblings (create_change_request_task, create_change_request_ci_association, create_problem, create_incident), so an agent must rely on the name alone to route correctly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools for related operations. The description never tells the agent when to choose this tool over create_change_request_task or the update/approve equivalents.

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