Commit a realized plan node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses key behaviors: it clears the plan flag, rejects commits without metadata.implements, and requires prior recording via update_node. It does not mention failure modes or reversibility, but the core behavior and preconditions are transparent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by the verification gate and usage guidance. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy or filler.

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 fully covers the purpose, prerequisite conditions, and rejection behavior, and it points to additional rules. It does not describe the return value or side effects on child nodes, but for the purpose of selecting and invoking the tool correctly, the context is sufficient.

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 schema already describes both parameters ('Plan node id to commit' and 'Ground slug') with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about metadata.implements and source paths, but it does not add new syntax or format details for the parameters themselves.

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: 'Promotes a plan node (metadata.plan=true) to the real tree by clearing the plan flag.' This is a specific verb+resource+mechanism that distinguishes it from siblings like update_node, which is referenced as the prior step for recording implements.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call this only after you have actually written the code and recorded implements via update_node.' The description also specifies a verification gate and references a rule link, making it clear when the tool is appropriate and what conditions must be met.

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