Refresh change request impacted services

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

Annotations declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive operation; the description adds failure-mode detail (MissingParameterError, ParameterError for invalid params/JSON). However, it never explains what the refresh actually mutates or how the impacted-service list is recomputed, so added context beyond annotations is modest.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the Sphinx-style block is compact. Minor waste: ParameterError is listed twice and no sentence earns its place beyond the bare minimum, but overall efficient.

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 tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the definition is under-specified: it explains one parameter and the return as a generic Pydantic response, leaving the agent without enough to call it correctly.

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 compensate. It documents only change_request_sys_id (and merely restates its type); the other 21 parameters are undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Refresh impacted services for a change request.' It is distinguishable from the many other change-request siblings, though it does not name an alternative or clarify what 'refresh' recomputes versus e.g. get_change_request_ci.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like create_change_request_ci_association or get_change_request_ci, and no prerequisites. It only lists failure errors, which is not usage guidance.

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