routine_code_commit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Save a code version', implying a write operation that persists code, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this overwrites existing versions, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns a version ID, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Save a code version') and adds context ('for future modifications or release within an Edge Routine'). Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., idempotency, error handling), output format, or usage context. For a tool that saves code versions—a potentially complex operation—this lacks necessary detail for an agent to use it confidently.

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 three parameters (name, description, code) with their types, constraints, and examples. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Save a code version') and resource ('within an Edge Routine'), specifying it's for 'future modifications or release'. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'routine_code_deploy' (which likely deploys rather than saves) and 'routine_create' (which likely creates rather than saves versions). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'routine_code_deploy' (for deployment) or 'routine_create' (for initial creation). It mentions 'future modifications or release' but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, this scores 2.

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