submit_change_for_approval

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation (submitting for approval) but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it triggers notifications, if it's reversible, or what happens upon submission. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely alters workflow states.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, 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 of a submission tool in a workflow context, no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the approval process, expected outcomes, or error conditions, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.

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 doesn't mention parameters, but with only 1 required parameter (change_id) and 0% schema description coverage, it's minimal. Since there's only one essential parameter, the lack of param details in the description is less critical, but it doesn't add value beyond the 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 'Submit a change request for approval' clearly states the action (submit) and target (change request for approval), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'approve_change' or 'reject_change', leaving ambiguity about its specific role in the approval workflow.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., if the change request must be in a draft state), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'approve_change' or 'reject_change', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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