create_change_note

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

The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the schema: it specifies that body supports HTML and explains the private flag semantics ('True for agent-only note, False for public'). However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose other side effects such as permissions, notification behavior, or reversibility.

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 front-loaded with a one-line purpose, followed by a cleanly formatted Args block. It is concise and contains no redundancy; every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity, the description covers the essential purpose and parameters thoroughly. The existence of an output schema means return values are handled elsewhere. Minor gaps like prerequisites (e.g., the change must exist) are not mentioned, but these are reasonably inferred from the context.

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 description provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters—change_id, body, and private—going beyond the bare schema types. For example, it clarifies that body supports HTML and that private controls visibility. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates.

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 tool's function: 'Add a note to a change request,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling ticket note tools like add_ticket_note by specifying '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 tool's purpose implies when to use it (for adding notes to change requests), but it does not explicitly reference alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of using add_ticket_note for ticket notes, so the usage guidance remains implicit.

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