commit_edit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is partly covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: this publishes staged changes externally, requires prior approval, and with send_for_review=False saves without review. It still does not say whether the commit is reversible or what happens on failure.

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?

Front-loads the core action and approval gate in one sentence, then separately clarifies the one nuanced flag. No filler.

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 existing annotations but no output schema, it provides the essential approval gate and flag behavior. It could be more complete about irreversibility and the role of package_name, but is largely 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 description coverage is 0% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains send_for_review well, including its default effect, but leaves edit_id and package_name undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (publishes) and resource (an edit's staged changes) scoped to Google Play. This distinguishes it from edit_summary and validate_edit, which prepare or inspect an edit rather than committing it.

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?

Explicitly gates invocation on the user having seen edit_summary and approved, which is a clear when-to-use prerequisite. It also explains the send_for_review branch, giving the agent enough to choose behavior correctly.

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