edits_commit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It acknowledges commit/publish and review skipping, but fails to disclose irreversibility, side effects, or required permissions, which are critical for a mutation 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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that convey the essential action. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the main action and a key option, but omits success/error behavior, prerequisites, or any post-commit information.

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 67%, but the description adds no extra meaning for any parameter. The undocumented 'changesNotSentForReview' is mentioned but not explained. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of description 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 clearly states the tool commits and publishes all changes in the edit, using specific verbs and identifying the resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like edits_insert (create) and edits_get (retrieve).

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 mentions a parameter for skipping review, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edits_validate). It lacks contextual triggers or prerequisites.

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