commit_insertion

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that downstream ETAs are rewritten, but it omits persistence/irreversibility, failure behavior, permission requirements, and whether the route is modified in place.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately states the key consequence, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe return behavior, error cases, side effects beyond ETA rewriting, or how this tool relates to evaluate_insertion, so an agent may not call it correctly in all contexts.

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 only 33%, and the description does not add meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not clarify delivery_id or route_id semantics, nor does it explain position bounds or what happens on an invalid position.

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 uses a specific verb ('Insert'), names the resource (a delivery into a route), and specifies the action's effect (rewrites downstream ETAs). This clearly differentiates it from evaluate_insertion, which would assess but not rewrite ETAs.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling evaluate_insertion, an agent must infer when to commit versus evaluate, and there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or validation conditions mentioned.

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