commit_import

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

The description opens with 'idempotently' while annotations set idempotentHint:false, a direct contradiction. It does disclose useful behaviors like whole-commit refusal and stale-batch rejection, but the contradiction with annotations is disqualifying.

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?

Three short sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the two edge cases that matter following immediately. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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Given the output schema and annotations, the description covers the important failure modes: withdrawn candidates and stale batch digests. The main missing pieces are precise definitions of batch_id and accepted_ids, plus resolution of the idempotency contradiction.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains expected_batch_digest well, but batch_id and accepted_ids are only inferable from the tool name and the phrase 'accepted people and resolvable interactions.'

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 ('Commit') and target ('accepted people and resolvable interactions'), adding the idempotency qualifier. This is more than a restatement of the tool name, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like review_import or import_content.

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 implies a post-review workflow ('from the review the user approved') and a safety rule around withdrawn candidates, so an agent gets some context. It never says when to choose commit_import over stage_candidates/review_import or when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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