record_commit

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the side effect ('writes a commit_recorded event') and the post-hoc nature of the operation, but says nothing about permissions, idempotency, or whether attaching a duplicate hash is rejected or overwritten.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the routing condition. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what it does, when to use it) comes first.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the 'why' well but leaves most parameter semantics and the mutation's safeguards unstated. Adequate for routing, incomplete for correct invocation.

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% across 6 parameters, and the description only implicitly clarifies two of them: CommitHash and the EntityType values ('task, finding, or attempt'). RepoId, TargetBranch, and as_agent go entirely unexplained, leaving most of the payload undefined.

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 ('Attach a commit hash to a task, finding, or attempt') with a clear temporal qualifier ('after the fact'). It names the sibling flow it deviates from (submit_attempt), so an agent can distinguish it from the normal submit path.

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?

Explicitly states the triggering condition: use when the commit lands outside the normal submit_attempt flow, with a concrete example (hotfix via override). It names the alternative flow but gives no explicit 'do not use' case or prerequisites.

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