Update change request task

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond annotations by documenting the failure modes (MissingParameterError, ParameterError) and the return type, but it omits auth requirements, side effects on impacted services, and any rate/scope limits.

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 summary sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the Sphinx-style :type:/:rtype: lines largely restate schema types and add boilerplate rather than new information. It is neither bloated nor maximally 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, zero-required mutation tool with no output schema, the description is far too thin: it neither explains the large set of undocumented parameters nor addresses why a task-update tool exposes search/pagination/CMDB parameters. An agent would have to guess at most of the call surface.

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 carries the full burden, yet it documents only 3 (change_request_sys_id, change_request_task_sys_id, name_value_pairs). The remaining 19 parameters — including state, change_type, task_sys_id, sysparm_query, response_length, and refresh_impacted_services — are completely unexplained, leaving an agent unable to reason about most of the input.

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 and resource ('Update details of a task associated with a change request'), which clearly separates it from siblings like create_change_request_task, delete_change_request_task, and update_change_request. However, it never explicitly names those siblings or clarifies the boundary between updating the task vs. the parent change request.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_change_request or create_change_request_task, and no prerequisites (e.g. task must already exist, required permissions) are stated. The only usage signal is the implicit 'update' verb.

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