layerfs_workspace_commit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds genuinely new context by explaining that conflicts preserve the Workspace for inspection, which materially qualifies the destructive hint. It also clarifies the merge targets the branch head exactly once, implying repeated calls create repeated checkpoints. The one weakness is the deferral 'force is passed unchanged to LayerFS', which flags the parameter without disclosing what it does.

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 with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the conflict caveat. The final clause about force is low-value given it explains nothing, but the overall size is appropriate.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important conflict outcome but omits what a successful commit returns (commit id? branch head?) and leaves the required ws object and message undocumented. An agent could call it, but not confidently predict results or the effect of force.

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% and 3 parameters are present, including a required nested ws object with sandbox/path/image fields that the description never touches. Only 'force' is named, and it is explicitly left unexplained ('passed unchanged to LayerFS'). 'message' is not mentioned at all, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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: checkpoint Workspace changes and merge them against the current branch head once. That is clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings like layerfs_operator_workspace_changes. It never names the closest alternative (layerfs_branch_merge), so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 explains what happens, not when to call it. There is no guidance on when to use this instead of layerfs_branch_merge, layerfs_workspace_status, or layerfs_workspace_unmount, and no prerequisites (e.g., changes must exist, workspace must be mounted). Usage can only be inferred from the verb.

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