update_change

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

The description mentions it is a PATCH operation, implying modification, but does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or idempotency. With no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient behavioral details beyond the bare action.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the HTTP method and endpoint. Every word is necessary; no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and allowed values. However, it omits error conditions, relationships to other resources, and any context about when updates are valid, leaving gaps for a full understanding.

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 lists the allowed enum values for review_status, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the semantic difference between unreviewed, acknowledged, and dismissed, nor does it define change_id.

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 HTTP method and resource (PATCH /v1/changes/:id) and the specific action of setting review_status to one of three enumerated values. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming the specific resource 'changes.'

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_changes or update_competitor. No prerequisites or context are provided. The description simply states the action without usage context.

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