apply-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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal an important side effect: the changes are 'applied and published immediately', indicating immediacy and mutation. However, it does not mention whether the operation is reversible, whether approvals are required, or whether conflicts may block the operation, which are relevant given sibling tools like resolve-change-request-setting-conflicts.

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 two short sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core action ('Applies the Change Request') and then adds the key consequence ('applied and published immediately'), making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 description is minimally complete for a one-parameter tool, stating what happens and when. However, given the surrounding change-request workflow and sibling tools, an agent would benefit from knowing whether approval is required, whether the action is reversible, and how conflicts are handled. The absence of this context leaves meaningful gaps.

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 the sole parameter 'changeRequestId' already described as 'The identifier of the Change Request.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, 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 ('Applies') and identifies the resource ('Change Request'), clearly indicating the action taken. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like approve-change-request or close-change-request, but the phrase 'proposed changes will be applied and published immediately' clarifies the core function.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as approve-change-request, close-change-request, or resolve-change-request-setting-conflicts. It implies the tool is used to apply a change request, but it does not state preconditions, exclusions, or how it fits into the change request workflow.

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