add_change_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add a task' implies mutation but the description discloses nothing about validation behavior (e.g., what happens if the change_id doesn't exist), authorization requirements, or whether the change request itself is modified. Minimal disclosure relative to an un-annotated 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the action with zero filler words. It earns its place. Not a 5 because for a 6-parameter mutation tool the brevity crosses into under-specification.

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?

This is a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description is only 7 words. It omits return values, validation/error behavior, task semantics, and any prerequisites. Insufficient for an agent to call it correctly in full context.

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 67% (4 of 6 parameters documented). The description adds zero parameter meaning and does not compensate for the two undocumented parameters (description, short_description), which remain unexplained in both places. At moderate coverage the description provides no additional value beyond the schema.

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 'Add a task to a change request' states a specific verb (add), resource (task), and target (change request). It distinguishes from siblings like create_change_request and add_comment because the resource and destination object are explicit. It's not a 5 because it doesn't explicitly position itself against the other change-management tools, but the action 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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or how this differs from update_change_request, add_comment, or other change-related siblings. The agent must infer the appropriate call context from the name alone.

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