submit_change_for_approval

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

The description discloses the state transition to 'Requested' and the permission requirement (WRITE_ENABLED=true), adding behavioral context beyond annotations that indicate it is a non-destructive 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, front-loaded sentence of 14 words with no unnecessary information. It efficiently conveys the purpose and a key requirement.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action, state change, and a requirement. It could mention error conditions or idempotency, but is largely sufficient.

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?

The sole parameter 'sys_id' is described in the schema as 'System ID of the change request'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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: moving a change request to 'Requested' state for approval. It identifies the specific resource (change request) and the operation (submitting for approval), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_change_request' and 'close_change_request'.

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 implicitly indicates when to use: to initiate approval for a change request. It mentions a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like 'approve_request'.

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