create_change_request

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

Annotations already indicate that the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the requirement WRITE_ENABLED=true, which is a behavioral constraint beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., triggers notifications, creates relationships) or required permissions beyond the flag. Score 3 because it adds some value but is not comprehensive.

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 sentence that includes the essential purpose and a key prerequisite. It is concise with no unnecessary words, and the information is front-loaded. Every part earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Despite having 15 parameters and 2 required, the description provides no overall context about the change request lifecycle, related tools (e.g., submit_change_for_approval), or typical usage scenarios. The schema covers parameters but the description lacks completeness for a complex tool with many siblings. This incomplete context could lead to suboptimal tool selection.

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 100%, meaning each parameter already has a description in the input schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. Following the rule, the baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and no additional parameter information is provided in the description.

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 clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'change request', meeting the specific verb+resource criterion. It adds the prerequisite 'WRITE_ENABLED=true', which aids clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling create tools (e.g., create_incident, create_problem), though the resource name is distinct. Score 4 because it is clear but lacks explicit 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?

The description only mentions a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_change_request or submit_change_for_approval. There is no indication of exclusions or recommendations. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate usage, resulting in a low score.

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