submit_change_for_approval

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds the state transition detail and the WRITE_ENABLED=true requirement, which is useful but does not significantly expand beyond the annotations. The behavioral profile is adequately covered.

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 front-loads the action and includes a necessary precondition in parentheses. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple state transition tool with one parameter and good annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and a key requirement. It does not explain return values (no output schema) or failure modes, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the sole parameter 'sys_id'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 'Move' and the resource 'change request' with a specific target state 'Requested'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like approve_request or close_change_request by focusing on the submission for approval action.

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 explicitly defines the use case: moving a change request to 'Requested' for approval. It mentions a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) but does not contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Given the tool name and sibling context, it is still clear enough for an agent.

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