uci_commit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool persists changes and optionally restarts a service, which are relevant side effects. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as irreversibility, required permissions, or what happens if there are no pending changes. The added context is limited but not absent.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that state the core function and the optional behavior. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is perfectly sized for a tool of this simplicity.

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 has no output schema, but it is simple with only two parameters, and the description covers the main operation and optional restart. Missing are details about the outcome (e.g., return status, error conditions) or clarification that this is the final step for persisting UCI changes. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the general purpose, but lacks completeness for a state-changing operation with no annotations.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the two parameters (config and restart_service), so the baseline is 3. The description only refers to 'affected service' in relation to restart_service, which adds no new meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. It does not compensate with additional parameter semantics.

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 'commit' and clearly identifies the resource ('pending UCI changes') and the intended outcome ('make them persistent'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like uci_revert (which reverts changes) and uci_changes (which lists changes).

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 phrase 'pending UCI changes' implies the tool should be used after modifications have been made (e.g., via uci_set), and the mention of optional service restart provides contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like uci_revert, nor does it provide any 'when not to use' guidance. The usage context is implied rather than clearly articulated.

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