nws_public_speaker_commit_change

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses optimistic concurrency ('if nothing changed since') and single-change scope, but omits whether the commit is irreversible, what permissions are required, and how failures are reported.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and the key precondition immediately.

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. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and an undocumented required confirmation_id, the description is only minimally adequate and leaves out parameter origin and failure behavior.

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?

There is one required parameter, confirmation_id, with 0% schema description coverage, but the description never names or explains it. 'Previewed public-speaker change' only indirectly hints at where the confirmation_id comes from, leaving the parameter semantics largely 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Commit') and resource ('one previewed public-speaker change'), making the operation clear. It also implies the tool's role relative to preview/cancel siblings, but does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast 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 'if nothing changed since' gives a clear precondition for use, implying the agent should commit only after a preview and only when the underlying state is unchanged. It does not explicitly name the preview or cancel alternatives or say what to do when the condition fails.

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