add_change_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add a task' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description does not specify permissions required, side effects (e.g., if it triggers notifications or workflows), error conditions, or response format. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 6 nested parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively. It only covers the basic purpose, which is insufficient for this tool's needs.

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 description mentions no parameters, while the input schema has 1 parameter ('params') with 6 nested properties (change_id, short_description, etc.). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no descriptions for these properties. The description fails to compensate by explaining any parameters, leaving their semantics entirely unclear.

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 'Add a task to a change request' clearly states the action (add) and target resource (task to a change request), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_comment' or 'add_workflow_activity' by specifying 'task' as the resource type. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of task or context, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing change request), exclusions, or related tools like 'update_change_request' or 'create_change_request' from the sibling list. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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