Create change

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

Annotations only indicate readOnly=false, openWorld=false, destructive=false. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: making the new change active, creating a JSON record plus a stage-document directory, writing documents on demand, and deriving a deduplicated kebab-case id. This gives the agent a concrete model of side effects beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence; each following sentence adds a distinct fact (concept, use case, id rule, workflow next steps). It is slightly longer than the bare minimum, but every sentence earns its place.

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 covers creation semantics, id generation, and the surrounding workflow. However, with no output schema, it does not say what the call returns (e.g., the generated id or change object), and it leaves the effect on any previously active change implicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that the title becomes the kebab-case id with -2, -3 collision deduplication, which directly affects how an agent should choose a title.

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: 'Create a tracked change ... and make it the active change.' This clearly distinguishes creation from sibling change_activate and positions the tool within the change lifecycle, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly identifies the intended use ('track multi-step work so any future chat can re-orient with a single change_status call') and gives explicit next steps with change_doc and task_add. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives for existing changes, so it stops short of a 5.

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