Create change

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/non-idempotent profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating creation - no auth requirements, no side effects, no note that a follow-up update is required to add solutions.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then the useful field hint. No filler, though the second sentence is quite terse for the value it carries.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a create tool whose input schema is a free-form blob, the description leaves the caller without field requirements, permissions, or minimum viable input.

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 schema exposes only an opaque free-form 'input' object labeled 'Change fields' with additionalProperties, so the description's list of common fields (name, content, entities_id, users_id_requester) adds genuine meaning the schema lacks. However, it names only four of the many possible ITIL change fields and gives no types or required/optional status.

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 new change'), which is clear enough to distinguish from glpi_update_change, glpi_get_change, and glpi_list_changes. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling for differentiation, but the resource+action pairing is unambiguous.

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 alternatives (e.g. glpi_create_ticket/glpi_create_problem), and no prerequisites such as required entities or permissions. The agent must infer everything about applicability.

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