Update fields on a change request (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
Update fields on a change request (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Key-value pairs to update | |
| sys_id | Yes | System ID of the change request |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Input schema / properties / fields / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / fields / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "assigned_to": {},
+ "assignment_group": {},
+ "backout_plan": {},
+ "category": {},
+ "close_code": {},
+ "close_notes": {},
+ "cmdb_ci": {},
+ "description": {},
+ "end_date": {},
+ "impact": {},
+ "implementation_plan": {},
+ "priority": {},
+ "risk": {},
+ "short_description": {},
+ "start_date": {},
+ "state": {},
+ "test_plan": {},
+ "type": {}
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds meaningful context by stating the WRITE_ENABLED=true feature-flag prerequisite, which annotations do not cover. However, it does not explain partial-update behavior, whether unspecified fields are preserved, or what happens on invalid field names.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording, and the prerequisite is clearly parenthesized. It is highly concise, though its terseness contributes to gaps in usage and behavioral 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 mutation tool taking a nested fields object, no output schema, and many sibling update tools, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core action and feature-flag prerequisite but leaves out partial-update semantics and usage distinctions that an agent would need to invoke it confidently.
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% at the top level: sys_id is documented and fields is described as 'Key-value pairs to update'. The description adds no field-level semantics beyond that, which matters because the nested fields object lists many field names with no descriptions or types. This is the baseline case where the schema carries most parameter meaning.
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 states a specific verb and resource: update fields on a change request. It is clear enough to distinguish from create_change_request or get_change_request, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools or explain scope beyond the resource name.
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 only guidance is the prerequisite '(requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)', which is useful operational context but not a when-to-use rule. It does not say when to use this instead of natural_language_update, update_request_item, or other update tools, nor does it state any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.