recommit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses that the operation binds current state without validating the past, that out-of-band edits become committed as edited, that records may be skipped or reported in problems, that project scope limits recommitting, and that signing must match the existing chain. This is rich behavioral context beyond what any structured field provides.

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 long but front-loaded with purpose, then the critical warning, then parameter rules and edge cases. Nearly every sentence earns its place, though the length is substantial and could be slightly tightened without losing meaning.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and schema parameter descriptions, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, parameter semantics, refusal conditions, project-scope behavior, signing constraints, and the return shape {recommitted, skipped, problems}.

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 0%, so the description must explain the two parameters, and it does so thoroughly: ids refers to records as listed by the UNSCOPED line, all=True targets every active record the server reads and is only for a fully checked store, and passing neither or both is refused. This adds essential semantics absent from 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?

States a specific action — appending a fresh write receipt that binds each named record's current value, context, and partition — and ties it directly to the remedy named by verify_writes for UNSCOPED records. This distinguishes it from the many sibling verification and reporting 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?

Explicitly gives when to use it ('ONLY on records you have checked against a copy you trust') and when not to (all=True only for a store checked in full). It also states that neither or both of ids/all are refused, and that signing mismatches cause refusal, leaving no ambiguity about invocation conditions.

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