update-change-request

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It signals mutation via 'Updates' and scopes the operation to metadata, but says nothing about ownership requirements, whether edits are allowed after a request is applied or closed, or how bypassApproval interacts with scheduling. The metadata scoping is useful, but key behavioral context for a workflow-affecting mutation is missing.

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 14-word sentence with the action verb front-loaded, followed by three concrete examples of the affected fields. There is no filler, redundancy, or buried information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a dense set of stateful siblings (approve, apply, close, claim ownership), this description is too thin. An agent learns which fields can be updated but not the preconditions, the impact on existing approvals, or what a successful update returns.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds marginal value by mapping 'note' to reason and 'schedule' to applyAt, but otherwise it does not go beyond what the schema's own field descriptions already provide.

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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Updates the metadata of a Change Request,' followed by concrete examples (title, note, schedule). The scope is precise enough to distinguish from state-transition siblings like approve-change-request and apply-change-request, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update-change-request-comment or update-change-request-proposed-changes. There are also no prerequisites stated (e.g., ownership via claim-change-request-ownership or a valid state for editing), leaving an agent to infer applicability from the name and schema alone.

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