commit_edit

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose several non-obvious traits: the operation is atomic, the editId is consumed (a one-shot, non-repeatable mutation), and production-track changes were already validated against safe mode at add-time. It stops short of covering failure behavior, required permissions, or what the commit returns, which keeps it out of the top score.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action and its atomic effect, the consumption of the edit id, and the safe-mode precondition. Nothing is repeated from the schema and the most important consequence is front-loaded.

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?

For a four-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to act safely: what happens to the edit, that it cannot be reused, and the review/production routing. Gaps remain around error handling and any return value, but they are modest relative to the tool's simplicity and the schema's existing coverage.

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 coverage is 75%, so most parameters are already documented, including the enum values for changesInReviewBehavior and the caveat on changesNotSentForReview. The description adds one genuinely new semantic fact — that editId is consumed by the call — but says nothing about the review-behavior option or how packageName scopes the operation, so it only marginally exceeds the schema baseline.

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 and resource ('Commit an open edit') and adds the effect ('every change made in it goes live (or to review) atomically'), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling operations such as validate_edit or delete_edit, so an agent must infer the distinction, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 'open' implies a prerequisite state for the edit, and the parenthetical '(or to review)' hints at the two possible outcomes, so usage is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer validate_edit first, or when to use delete_edit instead of committing, and no stated conditions under which the call should be avoided.

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