checkout_commit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says 'switch schema', implying a state change, but does not disclose whether this is destructive, whether it discards uncommitted changes, how it interacts with the current branch, or what happens after the switch. This lack of side-effect details is a significant gap for a mutating 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 concise, with a single front-loaded sentence and a structured Args list. It avoids irrelevant detail. The Args block is somewhat mechanical but still more compact than a long prose paragraph. It slightly loses points for not grouping optional parameters or explaining the selection between commit_id and commit_uuid, which could improve structure.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema), the description covers the basic operation and parameter types, but lacks guidance on how to choose between the two commit identifiers, potential side effects, and what the result indicates. It is adequate for a straightforward invoke but incomplete for confident handling of edge cases.

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?

The input schema has no property descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description's Args block is the only source of parameter meaning. It adds that commit_id is a 'numeric ID' and commit_uuid is a 'UUID', and restates the default for branch_name. However, it does not explain the relationship between commit_id and commit_uuid (e.g., whether one is sufficient, which takes precedence, or the behavior when both are provided), which is essential for correct invocation.

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 the action: 'Switch schema to a specific commit in a branch' (Переключить схему на конкретный коммит в ветке). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling 'checkout_branch' by mentioning 'commit' rather than 'branch'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other version-control tools like 'reset_branch', leaving some ambiguity about exact scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as checkout_branch, reset_branch, or merge_branches. It does not state when not to use it or mention any prerequisites, leaving the selection entirely to the agent's inference from tool names.

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