Commit a previewed public witnessing location, shift, or template change using its confirmation ID, so approved edits are applied only after explicit confirmation.
Commit a previewed public witnessing location, shift, or template change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirmation_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It indicates a mutating commit action but does not disclose permanence, permissions, idempotency, confirmation expiry, or what side effects committing the previewed change has.
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 sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes to identifying the operation.
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 is present, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a mutation tool with no annotations and an undocumented required confirmation_id, the description should say more about how to obtain that ID and what the commit does.
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 has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions 'confirmation_id' or explains where it comes from. The word 'previewed' hints at a preview confirmation flow, but the parameter's meaning and source remain implicit.
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 states a specific verb ('Commit') and resource ('previewed public witnessing location, shift, or template change'), which is clearer than a generic update. It broadly distinguishes this tool from preview and cancel siblings, though it does not explicitly name the preview tools whose output it commits.
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 word 'previewed' implies this tool should be used after a preview step, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say which preview tool to use first, nor when to choose this over commit_repeat_template or commit_app_reservation_import.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.