changeset_commit

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

Annotations indicate this is mutating, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the operation is atomic, requires a valid preview, and commits at a specific revision/hash. This gives useful expectations about side effects and preconditions, though it does not detail failure modes or permission requirements.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and constraints. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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 captures the core behavior and atomicity but omits practical details such as what path should point to, how preview_token is obtained, and the exact meaning of 'base revision/hash'. Given the low schema coverage and lack of parameter explanations, the description is adequate but leaves important gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 no descriptions, and the description does not explain what 'path' or 'preview_token' actually refer to. While 'preview' in the description hints that preview_token is a preview identifier, 'path' remains ambiguous, and there is no mention of how these parameters relate to the commit operation.

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 uses a specific verb 'commit' with a clear resource ('one valid preview') and adds important constraints ('at its recorded base revision/hash'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like changeset_discard and revision_revert by focusing on committing a preview rather than discarding or reverting.

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 implies usage context: only commit a preview that is valid, and do so at the recorded base revision/hash. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as changeset_discard, nor does it mention prerequisites like generating a preview token.

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