create_change_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the change request is similar to a PR/draft, which adds slight context, but it does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, return behavior, or whether the creation is immediate. This is minimal transparency.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words, and it includes a helpful analogy in parentheses.

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 simple create tool with no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the created change request ID) or any potential errors. It is adequate for basic understanding but leaves gaps that would be useful for an agent, especially since there is no output schema to cover return values.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema; 'space' context is implicit in the schema's 'The ID of the space' and 'subject' is already labeled 'Subject/title'. No extra value is provided.

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 ('Create') and resource ('change request') with the context 'in a GitBook space' and an analogy to a PR/draft. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_change_request and merge_change_request.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does; it does not mention context, exclusions, or alternative tools. The usage is only implied by the verb 'Create'.

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