confirm_commit

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses that this is a WRITE operation that confirms and cancels the revert timer. It warns about verifying device health first and explains the dry_run behavior. However, it lacks details on error conditions or what happens if the device is not reachable, which would improve transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, then workflow context, then usage guidance, then parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded for quick comprehension.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the workflow, safe alternative, and both parameters. Lacks return value format or error handling details, but still sufficient for an agent to use 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 2 parameters (target and dry_run) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It does: 'dry_run=True reads whether a pending commit-confirm is actually pending' and 'target: Device name from config.' This clarifies the parameters beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'Confirm a pending commit-confirm change, cancelling its revert timer.' It identifies the specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like config_merge or config_rollback by explaining it is the second half of the commit-confirm workflow.

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 explicitly says 'Run it only AFTER verifying the device is still reachable and healthy — doing nothing is the safe alternative.' It also explains the dry_run parameter for checking if a commit-confirm is pending, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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