Create a change record

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

Annotations already mark the call as non-read-only and destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'may notify recipients or change tenant data' and the operator write opt-in requirement. This goes beyond the structured hints and helps the agent anticipate side effects.

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?

Three dense sentences cover the operation, endpoint, body fields, reference, and requirements without filler. The field list is a bit long but earns its place because the schema does not enumerate these fields.

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 mutation with no output schema and a permissive body schema, the description provides endpoint, body fields, auth requirements, and side effects, plus a link to full API docs. It does not describe the expected response or error behavior, but the reference covers the remaining detail.

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 body parameter schema is a generic recursive anyOf with no named fields, so the description's enumeration of allowed body fields (changeType, source, summary, changedAt, changedBy, details, externalIdentifier, service) is essential. It also clarifies the confirm parameter's const true requirement and notes query pagination behavior.

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?

States the specific action and resource: 'Create a change record' with the REST endpoint POST /api/xm/1/changes. The verb 'Create' and the resource 'change record' clearly separate it from sibling retrieval tools such as xmatters_get_changes and xmatters_get_a_change.

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 makes the operation clear and includes prerequisites ('Requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over its get_*/list_* siblings or when it should not be used. Usage context is implied by the verb rather than spelled out.

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