abandon_change

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the main effect (no longer considered for submission) and the mutation nature, plus a warning to confirm with the user. It stops short of mentioning prerequisites like permissions or whether the operation is reversible, but covers the essential behavioral traits.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then the effect, and finally usage caution. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?

The tool is a simple mutation with two parameters and no output schema, so the description reasonably covers purpose and effect. However, it omits potential prerequisites such as required permissions (e.g., being change owner) or whether the operation is reversible via restore_change. These gaps could leave an agent uncertain about invoking it correctly in all contexts.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (change_id and message), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds 'Provide a reason message' which reinforces the message parameter but does not add new semantic meaning. There is a subtle ambiguity: the schema marks message as optional, while the description implies it should be provided, but this does not rise to a contradiction.

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 clearly states the action ('Abandon a Gerrit change') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like restore_change and submit_change. The effect is explicitly described: 'The change will no longer be considered for submission.'

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 provides clear usage context by labeling this as a mutation and emphasizing user confirmation before calling. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, the caution about intentional use and confirmation is a clear guideline for when to call this tool.

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