process_change

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses classification, review, belief impact, and output. Does not mention side effects, authorization needs, or state modifications like vault writes, but covers main behaviors.

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?

Well-structured, front-loaded with pipeline overview, then parameter list. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 3 parameters, output schema exists, and sibling tools, the description is complete: explains tool purpose, pipeline, each parameter's role, and what it returns. Sufficient for agent to use correctly.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description adds essential meaning: diff_text is raw unified diff output, commit_message optional for intent classification, pr_title optional. Fully compensates for schema shortcomings.

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?

Description clearly states processes a code change through the Change-Driven pipeline, classifies intent, runs review, computes belief impact, returns structured PR brief. Distinguishes from siblings by naming pipeline and outputs.

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?

Implied usage when you have a code change diff and want full processing. Lists pipeline steps but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like blast_radius.

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