commit_artifact

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read, non-destructive mutation, so the description adds real value by revealing that the create is atomic and that the artifacts are validated before commit. This goes beyond what the structured annotations convey.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and packs key constraints into a short phrase. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary explanation.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential workflow step and precondition, but it leaves parameter semantics mostly implicit and does not mention success or failure behavior. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain job_id at all. 'Hash confirmation' loosely maps to expected_manifest_sha256, but the fields' exact roles and their relationship to the manifest are left implied, requiring the agent to infer meaning.

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 verb ('create'), a concrete resource ('new artifact files'), and distinctive qualifiers ('atomically', 'validated', 'after preview and hash confirmation') that clearly separate it from sibling lifecycle tools like prepare_artifact, preview_artifact, and discard_artifact.

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?

It explicitly names the workflow precondition: use only after preview and hash confirmation. It does not list alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended phase in the artifact lifecycle is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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