commit_session

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

Despite no annotations, the description reveals key behaviors: with apply=true, it writes to disk and notifies LSP servers; with apply=false, it returns a unified diff patch. It also implies this is a finalizing action. However, it does not mention whether the session is destroyed after commit or any potential side effects like notification to servers.

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 core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, mode details, and usage guidance. No wasted 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema parameter coverage, the description provides essential behavior but omits details on the 'target' parameter and return type. It partially compensates by explaining the two modes and usage sequence, but gaps remain.

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 explains the 'apply' parameter well, clarifying its effect on behavior. However, it does not describe the 'target' parameter at all, and 'session_id' is only implicitly understood from context. With 0% schema coverage, more parameter guidance is needed.

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 commits a simulation session, with two distinct behaviors based on the apply parameter. This distinguishes it from siblings like evaluate_session (which confirms safety) and create_simulation_session (which creates the session).

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use after evaluate_session confirms the changes are safe.' This clarifies the workflow sequence. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternative tools for other scenarios, but the context is sufficient.

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