nws_commit_duty_auto_assign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the commit is conditional on the underlying data being unchanged, i.e. a stale/optimistic-concurrency guard. It says nothing about permissions, whether the write is reversible, or what happens if data changed (error type), which matters 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the condition appended immediately. Nothing is wasted and nothing 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage the description should cover the confirmation_id contract and the failure mode when data has changed. It gives only the conditional guard, leaving an agent to guess the rest.

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% and the single parameter, confirmation_id, is undocumented in both schema and description. The word 'previewed' vaguely hints the id originates from a prior preview call, but its format, lifetime, and how to obtain it are never stated, so the description only marginally compensates.

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 ('Write', i.e. commit) and resource ('previewed duty auto-assignment') plus a condition. The preview/commit/cancel naming convention makes its role distinguishable from nws_preview_duty_auto_assign and nws_cancel_duty_auto_assign, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 'if its input data is unchanged' gives one real precondition for invoking it, and 'previewed' implies it must follow a preview step. But there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling to pick instead (preview vs cancel), leaving routing to inference from the tool name.

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