Ship change

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

The description details destructive actions (merge, remove worktree, mark shipped) and states the production effect, going beyond annotations which only provide destructiveHint=true. It adds context about the change's lifecycle but does not specify error cases (e.g., if change not approved).

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 two short sentences, front-loading the main action and providing immediate clarity. Every part is essential with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter and an output schema (indicated but not shown), the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior: what it does, what it affects, and the prerequisite. There are no missing gaps for a simple mutation tool.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter 'id' with the same text as the description ('Change request id to ship (should be approved first).'). The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 explicitly states the tool's action: 'Ship an approved change: merge the task branch into the project base, remove the worktree, and mark it shipped.' It clearly identifies the resource (change request) and the expected outcome (production reflects the change), differentiating it from sibling tools like get_change_request or list_change_requests.

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 indicates the prerequisite that the change must be approved ('Ship an approved change'), guiding when to use it. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the prerequisite and action make usage clear in context.

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