commit_session

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes the two modes of apply and mentions side effects (writes to disk, notifies LSP servers, returns diff). Lacks details on error handling or rollback, but sufficient for a commit tool.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states main action, then details apply modes, then usage guidance. No unnecessary words.

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?

Output schema is absent, so return format for diff is not described. Parameter details missing for session_id and target. Usage precondition is well-stated, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 has 3 parameters (session_id, target, apply) with 0% description coverage. Description only explains 'apply' in detail, leaving session_id and target completely unexplained. This is a significant 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?

Description clearly states 'Commit a simulation session' and distinguishes between apply=true (writes to disk, notifies LSP servers) and apply=false (returns unified diff patch), which is specific and unique among siblings.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use after evaluate_session confirms the changes are safe,' providing a clear precondition. Does not list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

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