commit_import

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

Annotation Contradiction: the description explicitly says the operation is 'idempotently' performed, while annotations set idempotentHint to false. The description also does not disclose side effects, failure behavior, or what happens to already-committed IDs, which matters for a mutation-like commit operation.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the primary verb and object are front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity sacrifices needed behavioral and contextual detail.

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?

Even with an output schema present, an agent cannot determine the intended workflow, what 'accepted' means, how accepted_ids relate to prior staging/review tools, or whether retries are actually safe. The idempotency contradiction further undermines completeness.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description only loosely ties 'accepted people' to accepted_ids, and batch_id is completely unexplained. The description does not compensate for the absence of parameter meaning.

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 clear verb ('Commit') and resource ('accepted people and resolvable interactions'), so an agent can infer this finalizes imported candidates. It does not name a sibling tool for differentiation, but the action is specific enough to be useful.

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 about when to use this tool versus stage_candidates, review_import, or import_content. The phrase 'accepted people' implies it follows some review/acceptance step, but the description never states preconditions or alternatives.

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