commit_changeset

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat these. It adds the prerequisite that SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true, which is useful operational context. However, it does not disclose what happens when committing, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects.

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 extremely concise, using only nine words. Every word contributes to the core message. However, the brevity leaves out essential context, but it is still efficient and front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the commit behavior, prerequisites beyond the single mentioned one, and potential consequences. It only states the action and one prerequisite, leaving the agent with insufficient understanding of how the commit works and how it differs from similar tools.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'sys_id' with 100% coverage, including its description. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Commit' with the resource 'update set', clearly indicating the action. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'publish_changeset' or 'complete_update_set' which may perform similar operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only additional information is a prerequisite (SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true), which is not guidance for choosing the tool. It lacks any mention of typical use cases or exclusions.

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