Commit Workspace Action

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

The description discloses atomic token consumption and execution of exact bound arguments, which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). It clarifies that the operation is one-time and the action is predetermined, complementing the annotation hints. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, terse sentence that immediately conveys the core action. It has no redundant phrases and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 part of a two-phase workflow (prepare/commit), and the description does not explicitly situate it in that workflow. The parameter description and sibling list provide context, and the presence of annotations and output schema mitigates the need for further details, but the description alone is minimal and leaves workflow ordering implicit.

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 for the single parameter with a detailed description of the token's lifecycle. The main description only refers to it as a 'prepared action token' and mentions 'exact bound arguments', which adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'consume' and 'execute' with a clear resource ('prepared action token' and 'exact bound arguments'). It distinctly describes the atomic consumption and execution, and differentiates this tool from its siblings, especially prepare_workspace_action, by focusing on the commit step.

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 preparation by referring to a 'prepared action token', but it does not explicitly state when to use it or provide exclusions. The parameter description in the schema gives additional context about the token's origin and expiry, but the main description lacks a direct 'use after prepare_workspace_action' guidance.

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