nws_commit_change

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one real behavioral trait: an optimistic-concurrency guard ('if remote data is unchanged'). It stops short of saying what happens when data has changed (error vs. abort), whether the commit is irreversible, or what permissions are needed for this mutation.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action, scope, and precondition all front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

The output schema means return values need no explanation, keeping the bar lower. Still, for an unannotated mutation tool with an undocumented required parameter, the description should say more about failure behavior and irreversibility before it is complete enough to call safely.

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 single parameter confirmation_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never names or explains it. An agent can infer that the identifier comes from the prior preview step, but the description adds no explicit syntax, sourcing, or format guidance to compensate for the empty schema.

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 (commit) and resource (one previously previewed NWS change) with an explicit scope qualifier ('one', 'previously previewed'). It implicitly separates itself from the preview/cancel siblings, though it never names them.

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 phrase 'previously previewed' implies this is the second step after nws_preview_change, and 'if remote data is unchanged' gives a precondition. However, it never explicitly states when to use nws_cancel_change instead or what to do when the precondition fails, leaving usage partly inferred.

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