create_change_request

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite but discloses no other behavioral traits such as side effects, return values, or error handling. With annotations present, the description provides minimal added value.

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 sentence that states the action and a prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler, and every word is necessary.

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?

Given 15 parameters, no output schema, and a complex domain (change management), the description is too brief. It does not explain the purpose of change requests, approval workflows, or what the return value/sys_id will be. The agent lacks critical behavioral context beyond creation.

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 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information beyond the prerequisite. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description does not need to repeat schema details.

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 verb-resource combination 'Create a new change request', which distinguishes it from update, close, or get variants among siblings. The prerequisite adds specificity, but no explicit differentiation from other create tools.

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 mentions a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_incident, update_change_request, or other create tools. Usage context is implied by the tool name but not explicit.

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