Update change

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers nothing: it does not say whether this is a partial merge or full replacement, whether existing fields are overwritten or preserved, what permissions are needed, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool this is a severe gap.

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 single sentence is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded substance, no structure, and no sentence that earns its place because none convey actionable 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 two-parameter mutation tool with a nested, unconstrained body object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what payload to send or what behavior to expect.

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% for both required parameters. The description does not clarify what change_id accepts, and more critically, 'body' is an unconstrained object with additionalProperties: {} whose expected keys and value types are documented nowhere in the description or schema.

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 'Update a change' merely restates the tool name and title, adding no information about what aspects of a change are updatable or what an update means here. It is verb+resource but functionally a tautology, and it does nothing to distinguish this tool from siblings like create_change, delete_change, or trash_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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as trash_change/restore_change, and no indication of prerequisites or when an update is appropriate versus a delete. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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