Update Change Request

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read, non-destructive mutation. The description adds value by detailing the state machine, the requirement for close_code when closing, and the freedom of emergency transitions. It also discloses that additional_fields can be used for arbitrary updates, which matches the openWorldHint. No contradictions.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a compact state transition list, a summary of key arguments, and a returns line. Every section earns its place, with no filler or repetition. The formatting makes it easy to scan.

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 complexity (14 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the most nuanced aspects: state transitions and closing requirements. The schema handles individual parameter semantics, while the description provides the workflow context. It does not explain every parameter, but the schema does, and the description addresses the non-obvious behaviors.

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 the baseline is 3. The description enhances this by explaining the state transition flow, the meaning of close_code in closing, and the role of additional_fields. It also repeats key parameters like identifier and state, providing quick reference. This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 ('Update a ServiceNow change request') and specifies the scope ('state, plan fields, or assignment'). This distinguishes it from generic update tools like servicenow_update_record and from update_incident, while aligning with the dedicated change workflow.

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 state transition diagram provides explicit guidance on allowed state sequences and notes that emergency changes can move more freely. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the tool name and sibling list make it clear this is for change requests. The 'close_code required when closing' note also gives important conditional usage.

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