Commit Prepared Operation

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

The description adds genuinely valuable context beyond the annotations: 15-minute expiry, per-user binding, and a server-side write-enable flag. However, it states that recommitting the same operation replays the first result via an idempotency key, which conflicts with the declared idempotentHint=false — an agent deciding whether a retry is safe gets two opposite signals. That said, the destructive nature of the call is at least consistent with destructiveHint=true, and the extra preconditions are real added value.

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?

Four compact clauses, front-loaded with the step indicator, with each sentence carrying a distinct actionable fact (protocol, expiry, authorization, server flag, idempotency). Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical operational envelope: ordering, TTL, ownership, and server-side enablement. The remaining hole is the confirmation-hash contract and what a rejected commit looks like, so it falls just short of fully self-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?

Schema coverage is only 50%: the nested "operation" parameter is documented as coming unchanged from telgea_prepare_change, but confirmOperationHash has no description anywhere. The description's "with its operationHash" hints at the pairing but never states that confirmOperationHash must equal the prepared operation's hash, which is the one parameter rule an agent most needs.

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?

"Step 2 of 2: send a prepared operation, unchanged, with its operationHash" names the exact action, the artifact it consumes, and its place in the two-step prepare/commit flow. An agent can immediately distinguish this from telgea_prepare_change without reading either schema.

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 gives concrete gating conditions: must follow preparation, valid for 15 minutes, only usable by the user who prepared it, and requires TELGEA_ENABLE_WRITES=true on the server. It doesn't explicitly name telgea_prepare_change as the prerequisite tool, though "Step 2 of 2" and the schema's parameter description make that inferable.

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