direct_prepare_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals key behavior: the operation only drafts changes and opens an approval, does not apply them, requires human acceptance, and the approval expires. It also mentions the draft carries a diff hash and approval_id. It does not disclose expiration duration or any side effects beyond the draft, but the core non-applying, approval-gated nature is well 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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second provides the essential workflow constraint. Every sentence contributes useful information and the most important fact—approval is required—is front-loaded.

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 description explains the tool's role and relationship to direct_apply_changes well, and output schema existence means return values need less explanation. However, the complete absence of `changes` parameter semantics leaves a major gap for an agent trying to actually construct a valid call. It is usable but not fully complete.

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 0% description coverage and the only parameter, `changes`, is an array of opaque objects with `additionalProperties: true`. The description only says 'change set' and does not explain the required structure, fields, or format of each item. Since the schema provides no guidance, the description should compensate but does not.

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: 'Draft a Direct change set and open an unaccepted, expiring approval.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling direct_apply_changes by explaining that the draft must be approved before direct_apply_changes can execute it. This gives an agent a clear sense of the tool's role in the 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 clearly implies this tool is a prerequisite for direct_apply_changes: a human must accept the approval before applying. It names the exact sibling it pairs with, which gives strong usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative prepare-style tools, so it stops short of fully explicit routing.

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