create_change_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It restates actions and parameter categories ('Supports specifying...') and adds only a hint about optional AI review. It does not disclose permissions, side effects, what happens after creation, or error conditions, making behavioral transparency weak.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action and lists key supported options in a compact parallel structure. There is no filler or redundant content, making it appropriately concise for a create-tool description.

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 schema provides rich parameter details and required fields, while the description gives a sufficient overview for tool selection. However, without annotations or an output schema, it does not describe return values or side effects; still, the schema's completeness covers most invocation needs.

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%; every parameter has a detailed description with examples and constraints. The tool description offers only a high-level summary (branches, reviewers, work items, AI review) that does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states 'Create a new change request (merge request)' with a specific verb and resource, clarifying the merge-request equivalence. It lists key capabilities (source/target branches, reviewers, work items, AI review) that distinguish it from sibling get/update/list/review/merge tools.

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 verb 'Create' clearly signals when to use this tool, and the parenthetical '(merge request)' adds context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for updates use...'), so it provides clear context without exclusionary guidance.

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