commit_thought

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the locking, content update, cursor clearing, and failure condition. However, it does not state whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires specific permissions, which would be helpful for an AI agent.

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 sentences covering key points. The first sentence could be slightly more concise but is acceptable. No extraneous information.

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 tool is one of 25 siblings and has an output schema (unseen), the description lacks param details and output explanation. It mentions a failure condition but does not help the agent differentiate from similar tools or understand what to expect upon success.

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 one required parameter (session_id) with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description does not mention session_id at all, leaving the AI agent without guidance on its meaning or format.

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 action (lock the current thought, write refined content back, clear cursor) and resource (current thought). It distinguishes from siblings like 'commit_subagent_thought' by implying this is for main thoughts, and its purpose is unique among the listed sibling tools.

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 specifies a precondition: 'Fails with a directive if no critique round has completed yet,' which tells when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer this over similar tools like 'commit_subagent_thought'.

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