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

The annotations only declare the generic write profile (readOnlyHint=false, non-idempotent, non-destructive); the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the credit cost ('Free'), the returned value (changeset id), and the non-obvious behavior that a moved branch triggers reconciliation before the commit. It does not explain what happens to the proposal afterward or whether a failed commit leaves partial state, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence with the cost note front-loaded and no filler. The middle clause strings several ideas together ('one changeset on its branch, with stable ids and provenance'), which reads as slightly packed but each fragment carries information.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers cost, return value, and the re-reconciliation edge case, which is most of what an agent needs. The one real gap is whether the caller must have resolved conflicts first or whether commit does it, since the phrase 'with every conflict resolved' is ambiguous on that point.

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?

There is a single parameter with zero schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It refers to 'a proposal' generically but adds nothing about proposal_id itself (format, origin from mbe_submit_fragment, or max length), leaving the self-describing name to do the work.

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 (commit) and resource (a proposal) and describes the outcome: one changeset on its branch with stable ids and provenance, returning the changeset id. It never names a sibling, so the agent must infer the boundary with mbe_reconcile, mbe_resolve_conflict, and mbe_submit_fragment on its own.

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 phrase 'with every conflict resolved' implies a prerequisite state and hints the tool should be called after conflict resolution, but it never says so explicitly nor names mbe_list_conflicts/mbe_resolve_conflict as the preceding steps. No exclusion or alternative-selection guidance is given, so the sequencing is only implied.

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