update_change_request

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

Annotations already indicate it is a non-read, non-destructive, idempotent write operation. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, a useful behavioral constraint. However, it lacks details on side effects, success/failure indicators, or triggers (e.g., approvals).

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, highly concise, and front-loaded with the action and resource. No superfluous words.

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 only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what fields can be updated, constraints, or response behavior. For a mutation tool, more context is needed, especially given the broad sibling set.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema for the sys_id or fields parameters. No valid field keys or formats are provided.

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 'Update fields on a change request', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from create and close siblings but not from generic update_record. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which gives limited context. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like update_record or other update tools, leaving usage guidance implied.

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