memory_commit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context about updating all touched entities and logging/recording, but does not elaborate on side effects like whether updates are irreversible or how momentum_changes are applied. It does not contradict annotations, and the extra end-of-session framing is useful.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core verb ('End-of-session commit'), and packs all key behaviors without padding. Every word earns its place.

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 commit tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the trigger and main effects but omits momentum_changes and does not explain the destructive implications beyond the annotation. It is adequate but missing important operational detail.

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 only 40%, but the description partially compensates by mapping 'logs decisions' to decisions_made and 'records patterns' to patterns_noticed. It does not mention momentum_changes, which remains undocumented both in schema and description, leaving a gap for that parameter.

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 opens with 'End-of-session commit', a specific verb+resource pair, and enumerates concrete actions: 'Updates all touched entities, logs decisions, records patterns'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like decision_log, entity_update, and pattern_detect by positioning it as a consolidated commit operation.

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 explicitly instructs 'Call before ending any work session', providing a clear trigger context. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage condition is direct and actionable.

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