create_devops_change

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

The description reveals that the created change request will be 'linked to a DevOps deployment,' which is a behavioral detail beyond the annotations. Annotations (readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: false, destructiveHint: false) already indicate a non-read, non-idempotent, non-destructive write operation, and the [Write] marker is consistent but redundant. The linking behavior is useful additional context.

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 with no filler. The [Write] marker is redundant given the annotations, but the overall length is appropriate and every word earns its place.

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 create tool with 7 parameters, all documented in the schema, and with annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose and the linking behavior. There is no output schema, but that is typical for create operations. It is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool, though it could briefly mention required parameters.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details, though the phrase 'linked to a DevOps deployment' loosely implies that parameters like pipeline/artifact are relevant to establishing that link.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with a clear resource: 'a change request linked to a DevOps deployment for change governance.' This distinguishes it from the sibling tool create_change_request, which is a general change request tool, by specifying the DevOps linkage and governance purpose.

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 usage for creating change requests connected to DevOps deployments but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like create_change_request, nor does it mention when not to use it. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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