commit_host_stage

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false (mutation) but don't communicate the expected_revision parameter's optimistic-concurrency semantics, the checkpoint implication, or what happens if the revision mismatches. The description is terse and leaves these behavioral implications to be inferred from the parameter names rather than stated.

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 one efficient sentence with no filler and front-loads the core action first. It's brief but not at the cost of clarity for the main purpose; it just trades conciseness for missing behavioral/parameter detail.

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?

While an output schema exists and there's a clear purpose, the tool sits amid 26 lifecycle siblings with zero sequencing context, and key parameters (expected_revision, output shape) are undocumented in the description at 0% schema coverage. For a mutation tool with a free-form output object, this is under-specified.

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 but doesn't. The description mentions no parameter details: expected_revision's concurrency check meaning, output's required shape, or attempt's retry semantics are all unexplained. The free-form 'output' object with additionalProperties=true especially needs documentation in the description, which is absent.

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?

Description has a specific verb ('commit and checkpoint') plus resource ('completed host stage') and clearly states the tool returns the next stage. It distinguishes the action of committing/checkpointing from sibling tools like start/finalize/export operations, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about the sequence of host-run operations, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Among 26 sibling tools covering the full run lifecycle, there's no mention of what precedes or follows this step.

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