hs4.change.commit

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden but provides no behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the commit is irreversible, what permissions are needed, or any side effects, which is 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 very concise (5 words), but may be too terse. It lacks structure and leaves out important details, though for a simple tool it is not overly verbose.

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 tool is a commit operation with no output schema and one parameter, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the behavior, risks, or return value, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds context by linking the token to 'previously prepared', but does not describe the token's format, origin, or that it is required.

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 action ('Commit') and the resource ('previously prepared mutation token'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like hs4.change.prepare by implying a two-step process.

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 implies usage after a prepare step ('previously prepared'), but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites.

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