workflow_epic_create_change_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only signals 'emergency' and says nothing about required permissions, whether creation triggers an approval workflow, side effects on the epic, or reversibility. A single clause cannot cover a mutation tool with a downstream approval sibling.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero padding, and the verb and resource lead immediately. It is efficiently written, though it is terse rather than genuinely informative.

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 five-parameter, all-required mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, a single sentence leaves the agent without prerequisites, lifecycle, or return expectations. The description is far too thin relative to the tool's complexity.

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 0% and all five parameters (epicId, reason, urgency, description, affectedTicketIds) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning about the urgency enum values, the 200-item cap on affectedTicketIds, or the required reason/description fields.

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 (create) and resource (emergency change request) with the target (an epic), so the operation is immediately identifiable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'workflow_epic_approve_change_request' or clarify how this differs from workflow_epic_create.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this versus its siblings: nothing about when an emergency change request is warranted, whether approval must follow, or when a plain epic change is sufficient. The existence of a paired approve_change_request tool is left entirely implicit.

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