merge_change_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly labels the operation as DESTRUCTIVE and mentions publishing changes, which is a valuable warning. However, it omits details about reversibility, permission requirements, and the state of the change request after merging.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence plus a parenthetical warning. Every word adds value, and the destructive warning is front-loaded.

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 destructive mutation tool, the description provides only the core action and a danger label. It lacks context about merge outcomes, whether the operation creates a new revision, and what state the change request transitions to. Without annotations or an output schema, this is insufficient for agents to fully reason about consequences.

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 input schema provides clear descriptions for both required parameters (spaceId and changeRequestId), and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 the specific verb 'merge' and identifies the resource (change request) and target (main content), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_change_request or update_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?

The description provides no context for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites such as review status or that this should be used only after approval. The sibling tools imply a workflow, but the description itself gives no usage guidance.

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