update_change_request

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states that the tool updates properties. It does not mention whether the operation is destructive, whether special permissions are required, or how status transitions are validated, which is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 fluff, earning efficiency points. However, it is extremely terse and omits details, though that is acceptable for a simple operation with a well-described schema.

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?

The description is minimal and does not explain return values, side effects, or valid status transitions, despite there being no output schema. Given the tool's mutating nature and the presence of sibling tools like sync_change_request, more context is needed to fully understand its role.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by naming 'subject, status' in the prose, but 'etc.' is vague and adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Update' with a clear resource ('change request's properties') and lists example fields ('subject, status, etc.'). This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like create_change_request, get_change_request, and merge_change_request, which perform distinct operations.

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 implies the tool is for modifying existing change requests, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The presence of sibling tools with similar names (create, merge, sync) suggests context, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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