chim_create_change

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only reveals that the tool performs a POST to create a resource, which implies a write operation, but it omits details about auth requirements, side effects, error behavior, or response format. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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: 'Creates a Change notification (POST /api/v1/changes/).' It contains no redundant words and every clause earns its place, providing the essential action and endpoint.

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 has no output schema and lacks annotations, yet the description does not explain expected return values, success/failure conditions, or the actual content of the payload beyond referencing an external guide. This leaves gaps for an agent, especially given the existence of similar create tools like chim_create_outage.

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%, with both parameters (payload and dry_run) documented in the schema. The description adds a reference to the 'CHIM API guide' but does not elaborate on payload structure beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers parameter semantics.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a Change notification (POST /api/v1/changes/)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chim_list_changes (list) and chim_create_outage (outage), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides only invocation guidance ('Provide the payload documented in the CHIM API guide') but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools, so the agent receives no usage context.

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