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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the token is single-use ('works once') and expires in ten minutes, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the precondition, then the token constraint. No wasted text.

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 one-parameter commit tool with safety annotations already present and no output schema required, the description covers purpose, the critical when-to-call gate, and token lifecycle. Only the token's origin is left implicit.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the one parameter. It does add meaningful token semantics (single-use, 10-minute lifetime), but never states where the token comes from (presumably the prepare tool's output) or its format, leaving part of the semantics to inference.

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 action (make a change that a prepare tool previewed) and ties it to the prepare_* sibling family, so an agent can place it in the prepare/confirm workflow. The resource itself is generic (whatever was prepared), which is inherent to the design, but the pattern is clear.

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?

'Call only after the user explicitly agreed to that preview in this conversation' gives an explicit precondition and effectively an exclusion (do not call before agreement). It doesn't name a specific prepare sibling, but the prepare family reference is sufficient context.

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