quipu_events_commit

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description earns credit by explaining the reason — a lower offset rewinds the cursor and forces redelivery, and reading events does not advance state. It omits auth requirements, idempotency of repeated commits, and whether stale/unknown consumer_ids error.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler: the action first, then the two non-obvious semantics (rewind, delivery != commit). Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should say what a successful commit returns (new cursor value, version, error on stale offset) and should define consumer_id. Given only two parameters it is close to adequate, but the missing return/error semantics leave a real gap for a destructive, open-world mutation.

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 carries the full burden. It does give directional meaning to 'offset' (lower values rewind), but says nothing about what consumer_id identifies, its expected format, or what units/ordering the offset uses relative to offsets returned by quipu_events.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Durably set a consumer cursor'), which separates it from the read-only sibling quipu_events and from quipu_graph_events_commit by naming 'consumer' scope. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from those siblings, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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?

'delivery alone never commits' implies this tool is the required follow-up step after receiving events, which is implicit usage guidance. No alternative is named and no precondition (e.g. must the consumer exist / be registered) is stated, so the guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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