commit_subagent_thought

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the failure condition and core effect, but omits details like side effects on session state, permission requirements, or return behavior. The output schema might compensate somewhat.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Condition placed at the end for completeness.

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 covers core action and failure condition, but given 21 siblings and a mutation tool, more context about when this is appropriate vs. other subagent steps would strengthen completeness. Output schema exists so return details are optional.

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?

Only one parameter (session_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain it. The agent must infer its purpose, which is a gap for a tool that likely modifies state.

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 the tool's action: locking the winning candidate as thought content and clearing cursor, with a specific verb 'Accept the current equilibrium'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'commit_thought' by specifying 'subagent thought'.

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 mentions a prerequisite: 'Fails if no Nash round has run yet', providing context for when to use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among the many subagent-related siblings like advance_subagent_round or inspect_utility_matrix.

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