design_commit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a state-changing 'commit' and an 'ERC-gate,' suggesting checks can block the commit. However, it does not say whether the commit is destructive, what happens when ERC fails, or whether the earlier steps are actually executed by this tool.

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 one short sentence with no filler, so it is concise. The use of '+' as a separator creates a telegraphic, ambiguous structure that could be clearer, but it does not waste words.

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 likely state-changing design workflow, the description omits preconditions, failure behavior, and the meaning of key terms ('ERC', 'semantic state'). Even though the output schema exists and parameters are absent, an agent still lacks enough information to call this tool confidently.

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?

The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the 0-parameter baseline applies. The description appropriately adds no parameter-level detail.

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 names a core action ('commit semantic state') but buries it after a plus-separated list of other verbs ('Compose + visual-review + ERC-gate'), making it unclear whether those are actions the tool executes or preconditions. It is distinct from the sibling preview/rollback tools by mentioning commit, but 'semantic state' is left undefined.

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 word 'then' weakly implies the tool is a final step after compose, visual-review, and ERC, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as design_preview or design_rollback. An agent has to infer the intended workflow.

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