file_commit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: writes a .bak on overwrite, restores from that .bak, checks presence of files, and deletes the staging workspace directory. This is substantive and alerts an agent to destructive side effects, even if output/return details are not specified.

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 front-loaded with a summary sentence and then organized by mode in a compact bullet-style list. Each line earns its place with a specific behavior, though adding parameter references would make it even more efficient.

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 multi-mode tool with four parameterscaster, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It omits which parameters each mode requires, what verify_commit returns, how workspace_id relates to the staging directory, and what happens on missing files or failed rollback. An agent needs more to invoke all modes correctly.

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 for all four parameters. It only indirectly explains artifact and destination via commit_single's copy behavior, while workspace_id is never defined, and the required mode parameter's values are only listed informally with no explicit parameter mapping.

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 operation class ('Promote staged artifacts to a project path') and enumerates four concrete modes with distinct verbs: copy, restore, check, and delete. This is clear enough to distinguish the tool from the sprite-focused siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with 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 mode list effectively serves as usage guidance: commit_single for copying, rollback_single for restoring, verify_commit for checking, and discard_workspace for deleting. It provides clear context for when to invoke each mode, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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