create-change-request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects, but it only says a Change Request is created. It does not mention approval flow implications, audit logging, scheduling with applyAt, version-conflict behavior, or what the response contains.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the action, the resource, and the target scope efficiently.

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?

Despite the rich input schema, the description omits the surrounding workflow: what a successful call returns, how this relates to approve-change-request and apply-change-request, and any prerequisites beyond having IDs. For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is a significant 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?

The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the input schema provides detailed descriptions for configId, environmentId, requestBody, and the nested proposed-change structures. Since schema coverage is 67% and most nested fields are documented, the description does not need to compensate.

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 ('Creates'), a concrete resource ('Change Request'), and a clear scope ('for the specified Config and Environment'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get/update/apply/approve-change-request and from other create tools such as create-config or create-environment.

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 states only what the tool does; it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as update-change-request or apply-change-request. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the name and the creation verb.

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