create_change_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but does so not at all. It does not mention side effects (e.g., triggering approval workflows, sending notifications), required permissions, or constraints. The single sentence only states the action without any behavioral implications, leaving the agent blind to consequences.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise in terms of verbosity, but this brevity comes at the cost of missing essential information. Conciseness itself is handled well; the lack of content is penalized under other dimensions.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, any required fields beyond the schema, or operational context such as whether the change request is immediately effective. An agent cannot call it correctly with only this information.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings or usage. It does not. The description adds nothing beyond the schema's own partial descriptions. For example, it does not clarify how risk/impact are used or how to format dates beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clear verb (create) and resource (change request), which straightforwardly indicates the tool's purpose. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like update_change_request or list_change_requests, though it does not explicitly name them. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks any nuance or scope details.

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 description provides no guidance on when this tool should be used relative to alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions (e.g., when to use create_incident instead). An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name, which is insufficient for distinguishing among many creation tools.

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