commit_or_schedule_bundle

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds little behavioral context: it doesn't say whether the commit is irreversible, what side effects occur, or whether it can result in execution or scheduling, even though the tool name contains 'or_schedule'. No contradiction with annotations, but no added transparency either.

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 one sentence and visually concise, with no repetition. However, it spends words on an opaque phrase ('runtime-owned physical execution and scheduling boundary') instead of explaining the tool's behavior, making it under-specified rather than effectively concise.

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?

For a destructive tool with 3 required parameters, no output schema, and many closely related sibling tools, one vague sentence is far from complete. It omits parameter semantics, expected outcomes, and the relationship to execution and scheduling tools, so an agent lacks critical context for correct invocation.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions, and the description does not compensate: the bundle_digest is loosely echoed by 'bundle', but scenario_id and members are completely unexplained. The members field is an array of arbitrary objects, which particularly needs semantic guidance. An agent cannot know what values are valid or what these parameters mean.

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 specifies a concrete action ('Commit') and a resource ('one validated bundle'), so the core purpose is identifiable. However, it does not state what committing actually does or how this differs from the sibling execute_plan or schedule_plan tools; the phrase. 'runtime-owned physical execution and scheduling boundary' is abstract jargon.

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 word 'validated' implies the bundle must already be validated before this tool is used, which gives some usage context. But it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives among the many workflow siblings, so an agent cannot reliably choose between this, execute_plan, schedule_plan, or request_approval.

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