Record changeset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions 'Side effects: writes changeset and file rows' and 'Failure modes: raises when no workspace identifier is supplied or payloads are invalid,' which discloses key behaviors beyond what the schema conveys.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (Purpose, When to use, Inputs, Side effects, Output, Failure modes). Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy, making it concise and 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?

Given 11 parameters and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, usage timing, side effects, failure modes, and input overview. An output schema exists (context signals indicate true), so the description does not need to detail return values, yet it still mentions 'Output: changeset identifiers and summary fields.' This is complete for the agent to decide and invoke the tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing the inputs: 'files contains changed file objects; workspace_id or workspace_uri is required; metadata links commits, branches, intent, and sessions,' clarifying relationships and requirements.

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 starts with 'Purpose: Persist a code changeset with files, optional patches, git metadata, and session links,' clearly stating the verb (persist) and resource (code changeset). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_changeset_detail' and 'explain_change' that have different purposes.

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 says 'When to use: call after an agent edits or reviews files so future agents can understand what changed and why,' providing a clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools for other scenarios.

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