update_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) that is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds the prerequisite that WRITE_ENABLED=true must be set, which is useful context, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the update is partial or full, or what the return value is.

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 ('Update fields on a change request') with a necessary parenthetical about the WRITE_ENABLED flag. Every part serves a purpose, and there is no redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple with full schema coverage, but the description omits key context such as whether only the specified fields are updated, the return value, and any side effects. Given the absence of an output schema, the agent cannot know what the tool returns, leaving a gap.

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% for both parameters, with descriptions for 'fields' and 'sys_id' already provided. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Update') with a clear resource ('fields on a change request'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_change_request, get_change_request, and close_change_request. The phrase 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true' adds a constraint but does not obscure the 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 the tool should be used when updating fields on an existing change request, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as create_change_request or close_change_request. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and verb.

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