Commit Edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the preview is read back from Play, lists stagged locales and binaries, and explains that content is derived from earlier calls rather than this call's arguments. This is meaningful behavioral information beyond the schema, though it leaves some details like irreversibility or confirmation flow to inference.

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 short, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds context about the workflow. The 'Two-step.' fragment is slightly terse, but the overall structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The description explains the staged-content and preview behavior, which is the most critical non-obvious context. However, it does not fully explain the two-step confirmation flow needed to actually execute the commit, and with no annotations and a high-stakes publishing action, a bit more operational detail would be warranted. The output schema does reduce the need to describe return values.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters in sufficient detail. The description does not add per-parameter meaning, but it provides valuable context about the preview mechanism that relates to confirm and confirmation_token. This aligns with the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Commit an edit, publishing everything staged in it.' This clearly conveys that the tool finalizes and publishes an edit. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like create_edit, describe_edit, validate_open_edit, or delete_edit, but 'publishing everything staged' strongly implies its finalization role.

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 gives workflow context: it is a two-step operation whose content came from earlier calls, meaning the agent should use it after staging edits. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is more implied than explicit.

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