Commit Prepared Operation (FatSecret)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the requirement that the full operation object, a restated confirmOperationHash, and a fresh idempotencyKey must be supplied. It does not disclose success/failure behavior, side effects beyond 'write', or any auth-specific details, so it adds only partial context beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core action, the second lists required inputs. Every word contributes.

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 covers the basic workflow but omits details about return values, error cases, and the specific relationship to prepare_* tools. No output schema exists, so the agent has no idea what the commit response looks like. For a generic commit tool, it is minimally adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 descriptions only cover idempotencyKey (33% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that operation must be the full object, confirmOperationHash must be restated (matching a prior value), and idempotencyKey must be fresh. This adds semantic meaning that the schema lacks for two of the three parameters.

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 'Execute' and identifies the resource as 'previously prepared write', clearly distinguishing from the prepare_* siblings which create operations. It does not explicitly differentiate from fatsecret_commit_profile_create, a more specific commit tool, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 states 'after the caller has reviewed it', implying this should be used after a prepare call and after the agent presents the operation to the user. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, such as pointing to commit_profile_create for profile operations, nor does it say when not to use this tool.

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