update_changeset

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates mutation ('update') but does not disclose reversibility, permission requirements, side effects on linked files, or validation constraints. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a five-parameter mutation tool, so while concise, it lacks the substance needed to be appropriately sized.

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 mutation tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides only the basic verb and resource. It does not explain which fields are updatable, constrained values, or expected outcomes, making it far from complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 only 40% (state and changeset_id have descriptions); the remaining parameters (name, developer, description) are undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as allowed values or relationships between fields, and does not offset the coverage gap.

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 action ('update') on a specific resource ('changeset') and adds a useful detail about identifier formats ('accepts sys_id or name'). This distinguishes it from create_changeset and specialized operations like commit_changeset, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 use on existing changesets but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over create_changeset, commit_changeset, or publish_changeset. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the verb alone.

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