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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a non-destructive write. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: refusal conditions (stale reviews), background work inspectability, and retry behavior that never overwrites imported events. It also enumerates explicit exclusions (does not publish, send invitations, migrate money, or grant consent). However, it does not clarify whether the operation is idempotent despite the idempotentHint=false annotation, leaving a minor gap.

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?

Front-loads the trigger condition and effect, then prerequisites, then refusals, then exclusions. Dense but each clause adds distinct operational information. Could be slightly tightened, but few wasted words for the amount of behavior conveyed.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotation coverage of preconditions, the description covers trigger, inputs and their sources, refusal cases, background behavior, and explicit non-effects. It is nearly complete; only the 'confirmed' parameter and any return/observability details are 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It identifies jobId and reviewHash and their sources ('from prepare_host_migration review and get_host_migration'), which adds real value over the bare schema. The 'confirmed' boolean is not explained in the description, though its const=true and required status in the schema make its purpose inferable.

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 (commit host migration) and precisely describes the scope: saving unpublished event drafts and applying reviewed community images to the account and owned community. Clearly distinguishable from prepare_host_migration and get_host_migration, which are named as upstream dependencies.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'After the host reviews and explicitly approves the exact migration batch.' Also states prerequisites (jobId and current reviewHash from prepare_host_migration review and get_host_migration) and refusals (stale reviews, unresolved events, other owners). This is unusually complete routing guidance.

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