record_commit

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description usefully discloses the emitted event, but does not warn what happens on repeat calls despite idempotentHint=false, nor whether any claim/workflow state changes.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the effect, then the routing condition. No filler.

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 mutation with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers the what/why but omits the remaining field semantics and duplicate-record behavior an agent would need to call it reliably.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry weight: it conveys EntityId/EntityType semantics (task, finding, or attempt) and the meaning of CommitHash. It says nothing about RepoId, TargetBranch, or as_agent, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 — and immediately follows with the side effect ('Writes a commit_recorded event'). This clearly separates it from submit_attempt, which is the normal path for commit association.

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 scopes usage: 'Use when the commit happens outside the normal submit_attempt flow (e.g. a hotfix going in via override).' It names the alternative sibling and the condition that selects this tool over it, leaving nothing to inference.

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