commit_host_stage

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that it 'checkpoints' and 'returns the next stage,' giving some behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose important side effects like revision conflict handling or whether the operation persists immediately. With annotations covering the basic mutation profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes the return behavior. No wasted words or filler, and it is appropriately brief for the tool's complexity.

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 5 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no usage prerequisites. Critical context is missing: what state the host must be in, how to obtain expected_revision, what happens on conflict, and how the returned next stage should be used. The output schema exists, so return type is structurally documented, but the operational context is seriously incomplete for reliable invocation.

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. It does not explain run_id, stage_id, output, expected_revision, or attempt. The names are somewhat self-descriptive, and 'completed host stage' hints at stage_id, but no details are provided for expected_revision's concurrency role or attempt's purpose. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter mutation tool.

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 verb 'Commit and checkpoint' and the resource 'one completed host stage', with an explicit result: 'return the next stage.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like finalize_host_run (whole run) and start_host_run (initial stage).

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 'one completed host stage' implies it should be used after a stage is finished and before proceeding to the next. It provides clear context for when to invoke, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios. No misleading guidance.

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