transition_commit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses atomic compare-and-swap, idempotent retries returning the same receipt, stale-state rejection with reason_code 'stale-state', no server-side persistence, and the host requirement to store next_state only after exit_code 0. This is highly transparent.

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, each earning its place: purpose, behavioral guarantees, and host instruction. No wasted words, highly structured.

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 complex tool with 7 parameters and nested schemas, the description covers the essential workflow and state pact, though it doesn't explain optional params like table_policy. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. A 4 is fair.

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%, so the description must compensate. It defines 'state' as the caller-owned current state and 'transition' as an event.apply proposal, and introduces next_state, exit_code, and reason_code. It does not detail optional parameters, but it covers the core required ones.

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 states a specific verb ('Verify and commit') and a clear resource ('one event.apply proposal against caller-owned current state'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as the commit phase following event.apply.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (after event.apply produces a proposal) and provides context about caller-owned state and the host's atomic store requirement. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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