qobrix_field_change_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It transparently explains the pagination ('Paginates GET /{resource}/{id}/changes'), filtering logic, return shape (including optional 'user_name'), sorting order, and the resolve_users behavior. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but covers the core behavioral traits expected of a read-only history tool.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second details the mechanics, and the final sentence offers a concrete use case. No filler or redundancy—each sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It documents the return shape inline, pagination defaults, and a real-world scenario. It omits edge-case behavior like empty results or error conditions, but those are less critical for a simple query 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds contextual value beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'field' is not the LogAudit.source column, explains the resource-to-URL mapping, and states defaults for max_pages and resolve_users. This helps select and invoke parameters correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Build a chronological timeline of edits to one field on one CRM record.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_changes or search_changes, which handle broader change queries. The concrete use case 'who changed source on this opportunity and when?' further anchors the tool's purpose.

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 a clear, explicit use case ('who changed source on this opportunity and when?') that signals when to apply the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the focused purpose implies when it is appropriate relative to more general change-history tools.

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