update_change_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states it's an update operation (mutating), which is transparent about the mutation. It also states 'At least one field is required', which is a behavioral constraint. However, it does not disclose other behavior such as whether the update is idempotent, what the response will be, or whether the change request must be in a certain state (e.g., open) for the update to succeed.

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 concise, one sentence, and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes a necessary constraint ('At least one field is required') that adds value without bloating. However, it could have been clearer about the scope, but the sentence is efficient and to the point.

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 5 parameters, with 3 required, and no output schema. The description explains the basic update semantics and a key constraint, but it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to fully understand the update behavior, such as what happens if both title and description are provided, or if there are any other restrictions (e.g., permission requirements). The schema covers parameters well, but the overall operational context is incomplete.

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 has 100% coverage, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds a minimal constraint ('At least one field is required') but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. The schema already explains each parameter's purpose and constraints (e.g., maxLength). The description does not clarify parameter relationships or provide additional formatting details beyond what the schema offers.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'change request', and specifies exactly what fields can be updated (title and/or description). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'review_change_request' or 'merge_change_request' by focusing on title/description updates. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the scope (organization, repository) or that it's for an existing request, though that's implied by 'existing'.

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 says 'Update an existing change request', which implies it should be used when a change request already exists and you need to modify its title or description. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_change_request' or 'review_change_request', nor does it mention any conditions or prerequisites (e.g., having the repository ID, permissions).

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