Commit a single-page transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is atomic, that it validates the final graph before committing, and that it can handle coordinated changes without intermediate saves. The 'Cross-page deletion is excluded' constraint is also useful behavioral context. It could go further by describing persistence, reversibility, or exact return behavior, but what is provided is substantially more than a bare mutation statement.

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 three compact sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, the key behavioral benefit follows immediately, and the prerequisite and exclusion are stated last. Every sentence earns its place and none merely restates the tool name or title.

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 complex tool with a large operation schema, the description covers the critical contextual pieces: atomicity, single-page scope, final-graph validation, the need to read IDs/revision first, and the cross-page deletion exclusion. The extensive schema handles per-operation details. It is not a 5 because there is no output schema and the description does not mention what the tool returns or how conflicts surface beyond the schema's existing `CONFLICT` note.

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 67%, with page and expectedRevision already documented in detail. The tool description adds real semantic value beyond the schema by explaining that `operations` combine additions, updates, and removals, and by tying `expectedRevision` to a concrete source ('Read IDs and revision with mmap_read first'). This helps the agent populate both parameters correctly without repeating the verbose schema details.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Atomically combine additions, updates and removals on ONE page.' The title 'Commit a single-page transaction' reinforces this. It is clearly distinct from the single-operation sibling tools (mmap_declare, mmap_update, mmap_remove) because it emphasizes atomicity and the final-graph check, and the boundary is further sharpened by 'Cross-page deletion is excluded.'

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 gives an explicit precondition: 'Read IDs and revision with mmap_read first,' naming the sibling tool the agent must call beforehand. It also explains when this tool is valuable—coordinated moves or edge replacements become safe without intermediate saves—and states a clear exclusion: cross-page deletion is not supported. It falls just short of a 5 because it never explicitly contrasts this with the single-op sibling tools for simpler one-operation changes.

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