library_context_commit

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Durably append' signals persistence, and 'outbox indexes it asynchronously while the recent ring makes it immediately visible' explains visibility and indexing behavior. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences and front-loads the purpose. It efficiently conveys the core action and a key behavioral note without unnecessary detail. No redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, low schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It does not indicate what the tool returns, how errors are reported, or the role of many parameters. While it mentions asynchronous indexing and immediate visibility, it lacks essential details for safe and correct usage, especially for a write operation with multiple tunable settings.

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 only 25% (3 out of 12 parameters have descriptions). The description does not explain any parameters beyond implying 'assistant or tool result' for the content/role. For a tool with 12 parameters, the description should compensate for the low schema coverage, but it does not clarify key parameters like max_books, protected, importance, token_budget, etc. This is a significant gap.

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 tool's purpose: 'Durably append the assistant or tool result after a governed model call.' This specifies the verb (append), resource (assistant or tool result), and context (after a governed model call). While it is clear, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like library_context_prepare or library_context_protect, so it lacks a direct contrast.

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 when needing to commit results after a model call, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives. The sibling tool names suggest other operations (e.g., prepare, protect, release), but no exclusions are given. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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