delete-change-request-proposed-change

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full behavioral burden. The single sentence discloses the core removal action but does not state whether the setting itself is deleted, whether the operation is reversible, or any preconditions like change request state. This leaves an agent uncertain about side effects and scope.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the action and scope.

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?

For a simple two-integer removal operation, the description plus schema covers the basic call parameters, but the lack of annotations and absence of any statement about side effects or the distinction between removing a setting from a change request versus deleting the setting leaves contextual gaps. The mismatch between the tool name's 'proposed-change' and the description's 'setting' adds risk.

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 documented as identifiers. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, 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 specifies the verb 'Removes' and names the resource 'a setting' with the container scope 'from a Change Request', distinguishing it from general setting deletion like delete-setting. However, it does not clarify the relationship between the tool name's 'proposed-change' and the described 'setting', which could cause slight ambiguity.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative exclusion is provided. The context 'Removes a setting from a Change Request' implies its use when removing a setting from a change request, but the description does not mention related tools like get-change-request-proposed-changes or delete-setting.

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