Create change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects, required permissions, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool accepting an opaque nested 'body' object, this is a complete absence of behavioral context.

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 text is short but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than earned conciseness. It is not front-loaded with useful information because it contains none.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, an opaque nested body parameter, and a one-line description, an agent has nothing to work with to invoke this tool correctly. The definition is inadequate for a write operation in a densely populated sibling set.

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% and the single required 'body' parameter is an unconstrained object with additionalProperties, so the schema documents nothing. The description adds no meaning about what fields belong in body or their format, leaving the agent with zero guidance.

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 only restates the tool name and title ('Create a change'), providing no additional detail about what a change is or how it relates to siblings like create_request or create_project. It is effectively a tautology with no sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use create_change versus update_change, restore_change, or trash_change, nor any prerequisite or context information. The verb 'create' implies a write, but nothing routes the agent among the many sibling tools.

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