Commit document

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the gate verdict, refusal condition, force override behavior, recording of the override in the receipt, and the limitation that force cannot bypass an unreadable or unreplayable ledger. This is rich behavioral context that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause earns its place by explaining a meaningful condition or limitation. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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 the complexity of the commit gate and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the necessary behavioral conditions, refusal cases, force limitations, and override recording. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the prose must explain the parameters. It provides detailed semantics for force, including what it can and cannot override. It does not explicitly describe session_id's format or source, but 'End a session' makes its role clear enough for this two-parameter tool.

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 specifies the action: end a session by sealing its journal into a receipt, with a gate condition. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like verify and close_document by describing a unique commit/finalize behavior with refusal semantics.

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?

It clearly indicates this is the finalization step for a session and explains when a commit will be refused and when force may be used. It does not explicitly contrast it with close_document or other alternatives, but the usage context is strong and unambiguous.

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