update-change-request-proposed-changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states only that the tool mutates ('Updates'), omitting the concurrency/conflict model (latestVersionId 409 rejection, the forced flag that skips checking) and the fact that this stages proposed changes rather than affecting live Settings. The single sentence adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. However, for a tool with this schema complexity and concurrency semantics, one sentence is under-sized; a brief second sentence on conflict/forced-flag behavior would make it appropriately sized without harming readability.

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 a deeply nested schema, no annotations, and no output schema, and it sits among many change-request siblings, yet the description provides only the core purpose. Missing are the concurrency/forced-flag caveats, whether proposedChanges replaces or merges the existing set, and any pointer to get-change-request-proposed-changes for the pre-read. The description is not complete enough for an agent to call this tool safely without opening the schema.

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 about 67%, and the schema already documents changeRequestId, settingId, the forced flag, and latestVersionId (including the 409 behavior) with rich descriptions. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, but the schema covers most semantics, so the gap is modest. The dual presence of settingId at top level and inside each proposedChanges item is left unexplained by both.

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 verb ('Updates') and a specific resource ('proposed changes to the Settings included in a Change Request'), which is meaningfully distinct from siblings like update-change-request or get-change-request-proposed-changes. However, it does not name or contrast those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from the resource phrasing alone.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus overlapping siblings such as update-change-request, get-change-request-proposed-changes, delete-change-request-proposed-change, or resolve-change-request-setting-conflicts. No prerequisites (e.g., an existing Change Request in an editable state) or exclusions are mentioned; the usage context must be inferred from the tool name.

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