drive_sandbox_commit

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of disclosing behavior. It notes that the tool is experimental, creates an artifact at a specific path, and may fail with a 503 error if the required backend is unavailable. However, it does not detail the exact effects on the sandbox state or whether the operation is reversible.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose and add a critical requirement. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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?

The description mentions the output artifact path but does not specify the structure or content of the artifact. For a commit tool, details on return values or error messages (beyond 503) are missing. Given no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions providing meaning (100% coverage). The description does not add additional context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states that the tool stages and commits the current sandbox worktree, and mentions the artifact path. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like drive_sandbox_clone. However, it does not elaborate on what 'sandbox worktree' means, which could be ambiguous.

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 provides a usage condition (requires Cloudflare Containers) but does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The use case as a commit action is implied, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are given.

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