apps_file_commit

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

Annotations already declare write, destructive, non-idempotent and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the operation is atomic, it refuses to publish/save/execute, and the sha256 parameter acts as a precondition guard against clobbering a changed file — behavior an agent cannot infer from the annotations alone.

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, front-loaded with the operation, then the override rule, then the scope exclusions. Every sentence adds distinct information with no repetition or filler.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the sha256 precondition, and scope limits, which is close to what an agent needs. The remaining gap is that 'reference' and 'workspaceId' are undefined, and the description never states what the call returns on success.

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% for four parameters, so the schema supplies no meaning. The description carries part of the load by explaining expectedSha256's two modes and implying path is relative, but workspaceId and reference are entirely unexplained, leaving two of four parameters opaque.

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 verb and resource ('Atomically deliver a completed app-workspace upload to a relative workspace path') and explicitly disclaims the sibling actions publish, save and execute, so an agent can separate it from apps_publish and apps_save. The verb 'deliver' is slightly abstract compared with a plain 'commit/write the uploaded file', which keeps it from being maximally crisp.

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?

Gives a concrete conditional rule for the key decision: omit expectedSha256 for a new file, supply the existing file sha256 to replace it. It also signals the precondition that the upload must already be 'completed'. It stops short of naming when to prefer this over file_upload or apps_save in a workflow sense.

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