create_change

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new change request' and details parameters. It fails to mention side effects, permission requirements, validation behavior, or what happens on success. It does add minor parameter-level trait (e.g., HTML supported for description, ISO 8601 format for dates), but overall tool behavior remains opaque.

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 well-organized docstring with a lead sentence and a bulleted-like Args list. Each line is concise and adds unique information. It is somewhat lengthy due to 13 parameters, but every line is necessary given the schema lacks descriptions.

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 complex tool with 13 parameters, the description covers all parameter meanings and formats. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, it lacks guidance on when to use the tool and any overarching behavioral context, which slightly detracts from completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides extensive semantic detail for every parameter, including exact numeric mappings for priority, impact, status, risk, and change_type, plus format expectations for dates. This goes far beyond the bare type/default information in the schema.

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 opens with 'Create a new change request', a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like update_change, delete_change, and get_changes. It unambiguously conveys what the tool does.

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 explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the first line implies its purpose, there is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with related tools like create_ticket or create_asset. The description is purely a parameter list, offering no usage context.

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