direct_prepare_changes

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

With annotations flagging readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, the description adds meaningful context the annotations cannot: the draft is unaccepted and expiring, it carries a diff hash and approval_id, and execution is gated on human acceptance. It stops short of describing failure modes or what invalidates the draft.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the lifecycle constraint. No filler and nothing redundant across the sentences.

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?

The approval lifecycle is well covered and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. However, the complete absence of documentation for the `changes` payload — the one thing the caller must construct — leaves a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 single required parameter `changes` is an untyped array of free-form objects with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about its shape or contents. A mutation tool whose only input is opaque leaves the agent guessing at what a valid change set looks like.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Draft a Direct change set and open ... approval') and explicitly distinguishes the operation from its executor by naming `direct_apply_changes`. An agent can tell this is the prepare/draft half of a two-step flow without opening the schema.

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?

Clear context: use this to draft, then a human must accept the approval before `direct_apply_changes` executes. It names the dependent tool and the gating condition, but gives no explicit when-not guidance or differentiation from sibling prepare flows like `direct_prepare_write`.

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