apps_import_commit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait: the commit is guarded by the previously issued package digest, implying a staleness/concurrency check. It stops short of saying what is overwritten or what permissions are required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no padding. Efficient, though it is arguably too terse for a destructive four-parameter tool.

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 four parameters, 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits what a successful commit produces, the meaning of reference/operationId/confirmed, and any rollback or irreversibility context. The digest precondition is the only depth provided.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the param burden. It glosses expectedPackageDigest ('previous package digest') and gestures at the decision behind 'confirmed', but says nothing about 'reference' or 'operationId' — half the parameters remain unexplained, leaving the agent guessing at required string formats.

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+resource ('Commit an inspected App package') and links the action to a prior inspection step plus a digest and an approved decision. It reads as a distinct commit step in an inspect-then-commit workflow, though it never names the sibling tools (apps_import_inspect, apps_file_commit) it is adjacent to.

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?

'Inspected' and 'its previous package digest' imply a prerequisite inspection step and a prior approved decision, which hints at the workflow. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, no named alternative, and no mention that commit should only follow apps_import_inspect.

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