submit_change_for_approval

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED=true prerequisite and the specific state transition to 'Requested', which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't describe side effects post-approval, but it adds 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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, target state, and a key prerequisite with zero wasted 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and prerequisite. It doesn't address edge cases like what happens if the change is already in Requested state, but that level of detail is not required for such a simple operation.

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 parameter sys_id is fully documented in the schema with 'System ID of the change request'. The description adds no extra parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb 'Move' with a clear target state ('Requested') and purpose ('for approval'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_change_request, update_change_request, or close_change_request. The action and resource are explicit.

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 clearly indicates the purpose (submitting a change for approval) and implies when it should be used, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since the context is clear but there are no exclusions, this earns a 4.

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