update_change_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update,' which implies mutation, but it does not mention permissions, reversibility, response behavior, or that fields are optional. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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, focused sentence that delivers the core action and the key identifier nuance without any wasted words. It is concise and readable.

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?

With 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 18% schema coverage, this description is far from complete. The agent needs to know field value formats (e.g., date syntax, choice values for state, impact, risk) and typical usage patterns. None of that is provided, so the tool cannot be reliably invoked beyond passing an identifier.

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 18%, so the schema provides little meaning. The description adds value only for `change_id` (explicitly stating sys_id or change number). The other 10 parameters (risk, impact, category, dates, work_notes, etc.) are completely undocumented by both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess formats and allowed values.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('an existing change request'), and adds that it accepts either sys_id or change number. This distinguishes it from related tools like create_change_request and get_change_request_details, so an agent can readily identify its purpose.

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 implies it is for modifying existing change requests, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as submit_change_for_approval, approve_change, or reject_change. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so the guidance is thin.

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