List Update Set Changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, potential permissions required, pagination behavior (despite the 'limit' parameter), or any nuances about which changes are included (e.g., whether system updates are excluded). The description simply restates the tool's function without adding behavioral context.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundancy or filler. It directly states the purpose and includes parenthetical clarification ('changes') to avoid ambiguity. Every word is necessary.

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's moderate complexity, the schema is complete and an output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values. However, the lack of annotations and absence of any behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, pagination, or domain-specific meaning of 'customer updates') leaves the agent with only the literal function. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters (limit and update_set_sys_id), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any further meaning beyond what the schema already says; 'within an update set' simply maps to update_set_sys_id without additional detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and explicitly identifies the resource ('customer updates (changes)') and its context ('within an update set'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_update_sets, which list update sets themselves, and list_records, which is generic.

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 phrase 'within an update set' clearly signals the intended use case: when you have a specific update set and want its individual changes. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives, the context is unambiguous and the required update_set_sys_id parameter reinforces when this tool is appropriate.

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