request_commit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the approval workflow (auto vs manual) and the dependency on holding a lock, which is valuable. It does not mention failure modes or response format, but core behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Two sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and the second sentence elaborating approval conditions. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 tool is simple with only 2 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core approval workflow but does not explain what happens after approval or rejection, nor any timeouts or response format. This is adequate for a basic request tool but leaves some ambiguity.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of both parameters with descriptions for 'files' and 'summary'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's action: 'Request permission to commit changes to files.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that is distinct from sibling tools like lock_files and release_files, which deal with locking and releasing rather than committing.

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?

It provides clear context for when the tool is used by explaining the auto-approval condition (holding the lock and non-manual path) versus waiting for owner approval. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for different workflows, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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