fence_commit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well. It discloses the re-validation of the read set, the rejection and fencing of the intent on conflict, and the replay behavior on success, which are critical side effects for an agent to know.

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 two sentences with no waste. Each sentence conveys distinct information: the purpose and the two behavioral outcomes (rejection/fencing on conflict, replay on success).

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 description covers the tool's purpose, failure condition, side effect on the intent, and success behavior, making it complete for a two-parameter tool with a rich schema and workflow context. No output schema exists, but return values aren't necessary to describe given the description's depth.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add detail beyond the schema's property descriptions for 'prepared' and 'result', but the schema already explains that prepared is the ticket from a prior call and result is the actual tool output.

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 tool's function: 'Report that a prepared effect finished, and mint its content-addressed EffectCert.' This distinguishes it from siblings fence_prepare and fence_abort by covering the commit/terminal success step in the workflow.

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 says to use this after a prepared effect has finished, and clarifies that if a dependency moved, the commit is rejected and the intent is fenced as failed. It also explains that successful commits cause later fence_prepare calls to replay the cert, which gives clear usage context, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like fence_abort.

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