Commit AI Coach care

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

Annotations already communicate that this is a mutating but idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the confirmation precondition, which is useful context, but it does not describe side effects, authorization needs, or failure behaviors beyond what annotations and schema already convey.

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 a single sentence that is direct, front-loaded, and free of redundant phrasing. It communicates the essential action and precondition without wasting words.

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 a rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the main context needed to invoke the tool correctly. It could have explicitly referenced prepare_ai_coach_care, but the previewToken schema description already supplies that linkage.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameters. It also provides no additional parameter-level insight beyond the schema, matching the baseline score of 3.

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 names a specific action ("apply a care action") with a clear precondition (user confirmed in dashboard), which makes the tool's purpose understandable and separates it from prepare-style tools. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the resource and action are specific enough.

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 clearly indicates this tool is used when the user has already confirmed the care action in the dashboard, which establishes the correct context. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the confirmation precondition is a useful usage signal.

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