Commit changeset

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: validate-then-write atomicity, pre-image journaling location, automatic crash rollback on project open, a mutual-exclusion rule ('Other edits are refused while the commit runs'), and the locked failure state requiring undo_changeset. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent must know before invoking a write 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?

Purpose and return value are front-loaded, then validation, then recovery semantics. The closing sentence about the RPG Maker editor needing to stay closed is relevant but slightly detached from the commit narrative; otherwise every clause carries operational meaning.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description states what is returned ('per-file summary (created/modified, event/tile/record counts)'). Combined with the atomicity, backup and failure-state details, an agent has everything needed to call this safely and interpret the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics carry no burden and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter discussion, which is appropriate since the schema is empty.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Write every file staged by the open changeset to disk as one unit and return a per-file summary'. The verb 'commit' plus 'staged by the open changeset' cleanly separates it from begin_changeset, discard_changeset and undo_changeset in the sibling list.

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?

States the precondition ('the open changeset'), the lifecycle position ('Until this is called, nothing of the changeset is on disk and reads reflect the staged edits') and the rollback alternative (undo_changeset). It does not explicitly contrast committing versus discarding, but the sequencing context makes the choice clear.

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