Commit the next stage

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the workflow pattern of testing, size-checking, staging, and committing, as well as the scoping to a single declared stage. It does not contradict annotations, and it enriches the behavioral context beyond just 'destructive'. However, it does not disclose failure modes or side effects such as what happens if tests fail.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly communicates the action and scope. No filler or redundancy.

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 six parameters, a destructive annotation, and no output schema, the description is quite minimal. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a declared plan), what happens if size checks fail, or the effect of dryRun. This leaves important gaps for an agent aiming to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description makes no reference to the six input parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining what 'files', 'dryRun', 'maxFiles', or 'maxLines' mean. The only implicit mention is 'stage', but it is not tied to the parameter definition.

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 compound verb ('Test, size-check, stage, and commit') and identifies the resource as 'the next declared plan stage' with a scoping constraint ('only'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan_task, task_status, and finish_task, making its purpose clear.

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 implies when to use the tool (when a plan stage is ready to commit) but does not explicitly state exclusions or mention alternative tools. The phrase 'only the next declared plan stage' provides some contextual constraint but lacks explicit 'use when' or 'instead of' guidance.

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