myob_commit_operation

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

With no annotations, the description correctly discloses that the tool 'mutates MYOB' and 'requires a valid approval token', which are critical behavioral traits. However, it does not discuss reversibility, idempotency, or consequences of invalid tokens, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the primary action and then adding essential safety context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary 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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema, and the description covers the core purpose and safety. However, it does not explain the surrounding workflow (e.g., how to obtain an approval token, relationship to prepare/approve tools) or return values, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 burden. It implicitly explains 'operation_id' as the approved operation and 'approval_token' as the required token, but provides no format, source, or constraints. This adds some meaning but is minimal.

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 function: 'Commit any approved MYOB operation.' This is a specific verb (commit) and resource (approved MYOB operation). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'approved', implying a workflow with prior approval, but does not explicitly name alternatives like myob_raw_commit_mutation.

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 it should be used for approved operations requiring a token, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The context is clear but exclusions and alternatives are missing.

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