yc_commit_application_update

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true, but the description adds substantive context beyond them: it rechecks current answers and live field permissions, auto-verifies saved values, is explicitly best-effort rather than atomic compare-and-swap, and surfaces the terminal receipt in errors when dispatch occurred. Those are exactly the mutation risk and failure-mode traits an agent needs. It stops short of describing partial-failure recovery or what happens if verification fails.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then layering revalidation, concurrency caveat, and error behavior. Nothing is redundant, though the concurrency caveat could be tightened.

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 output schema covers the return shape and the description covers the dispatch semantics, so the mutation behavior is reasonably complete. However, for a destructive open-world commit with two entirely undocumented required parameters, the definition leaves a real gap around inputs.

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% for both required parameters, so receiptId and confirmDigest are documented nowhere. The description never mentions either parameter, how a receipt is obtained, or how the digest is derived, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Commit a typed application preview") and states a key scope constraint ("once"). It implicitly positions itself as the final step after a preview, though it never names the prepare/verify siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied through the phrase "Commit a typed application preview once" and the mention of rechecking answers before dispatch, which suggests a prepared preview is a prerequisite. There is no explicit when-to-use versus yc_prepare_application_update, yc_verify_application_update, or yc_commit_mutation, and no stated preconditions for obtaining a receipt.

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