confirm_commit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds real context beyond them by explaining the commit-confirm/revert-timer mechanism and warning that confirming locks in the change rather than allowing auto-revert. It does not address idempotency (annotations say non-idempotent) or what happens when no pending commit exists, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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-loaded with the write marker and core purpose, then workflow context, then a structured Args section. Slight redundancy between the prose dry_run explanation and the Args entry repeats the same idea twice, which trims a point but does not impede scanning.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description supplies the workflow position (second half of commit-confirm), the risk framing, the safe default, and both parameter meanings. An agent can call this correctly with what is provided; remaining edge cases (no pending commit, failure handling) are minor for this workflow tool.

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 the load, and it does: dry_run is defined semantically ('report whether a pending commit exists without confirming') and target is identified as a 'Device name from config.' Neither default value nor anyOf/null semantics are restated, but the behavioral meaning of both parameters is conveyed.

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?

Opens with a bracketed [WRITE] marker and a specific verb+resource ('Confirm a pending commit-confirm change'), plus the concrete effect ('cancelling its revert timer'). This clearly separates it from siblings like config_rollback and undo_apply, which operate on already-committed state rather than a pending confirm.

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 states the precondition ('Run it only AFTER verifying the device is still reachable and healthy') and names the alternative course of action ('doing nothing is the safe alternative, because the device then reverts on its own'). It also routes the read-only case to dry_run=True, covering both modes.

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