commit_level_instance

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the write/destructive nature is known. The description goes further by disclosing the gate semantics, that 'not being edited' is a SUCCESS no-op rather than an error, save-failure behavior, the GEditor requirement, and unattended dialog behavior — genuinely valuable context beyond annotations.

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 action, then progressively adds semantics. Mostly every sentence earns its place, though the embedded internal function chain (CanCommitLevelInstance -> CommitLevelInstance) and GEditor/transactor details push it toward verbosity.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description embeds the exact return shape ({actor_name, committed, was_editing, discarded, note}) plus the meaning of each field's failure/success cases. For a mutation tool with no output schema, this removes any gap an agent would face.

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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description restates discard's default/false semantics and actor_name matching without adding new syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 ('closes the in-place edit opened by edit_level_instance') and precisely describes the full effect (commits/discards, saves sub-level .umap, re-collapses into ALevelInstance). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like edit_level_instance, break_level_instance, and get_level_instance_info by naming the lifecycle step it performs.

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 identifies the counterpart tool (edit_level_instance), states the safe-when-not-editing case, and declares it safe to call unconditionally to guarantee no dangling edit-mode. It also documents the canonical headless call path and the discard alternative, leaving no ambiguity about when to use it.

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