Create or extend a change group

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden but only hints at behavior (e.g., 'reused on poll'). It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or what happens when the ID already exists beyond the implicit extension capability.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the main action and intention. It contains no unnecessary words, though it could incorporate slightly more structural detail.

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 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose but lacks information about return values, success/failure indicators, or common use cases. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters already described in the schema. The description adds minimal value by rephrasing the purpose ('add Named Controls to an existing one'), which aligns with the 'controls' parameter. However, it does not compensate beyond baseline.

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 explicitly states the tool's action ('Create a change group or add Named Controls to an existing one') and its purpose ('so you can poll for changes'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'qsys_destroy_change_group' and 'qsys_poll_change_group' by focusing on creation/extension.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'qsys_change_group_add_component'. The description does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions.

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