glpi_update_change

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that it updates fields. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, what permissions/authorization are required, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target. There is no redundant or extraneous content, and it is appropriately sized for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

The description combined with the fully documented schema is adequate for basic usage, but the tool has no output schema and no annotations, leaving gaps around return values, side effects, and error behavior. It is minimally complete for a two-parameter update operation but not rich enough to be considered fully helpful.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both required parameters ('ID do change' and 'Campos a serem atualizados'). The tool description adds no new meaning beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Atualiza campos de um change existente' clearly states a specific verb (update) and resource (fields of an existing change), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It also differentiates from sibling tools like glpi_create_change and glpi_update_ticket by explicitly targeting the 'change' entity.

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 phrase 'change existente' implies this tool is for modifying an already-created change, which provides basic context for when to use it. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention of prerequisites like the change needing to exist, and no comparison with alternatives such as glpi_add_change_followup.

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