commit

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

Annotations already indicate destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false. The description adds valuable context about atomicity and conflict handling ('if conflict, no changes applied'), which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the transactional behavior.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and atomicity guarantee. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundant phrasing.

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 only two parameters, an output schema exists, and the description covers the core behavior. It could mention the safety of dry_run versus apply, but given the annotations and default mode, the essentials are present. No critical information is missing for correct 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%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'proposal_id' or 'mode'. While 'mode' with enum apply/dry_run is self-explanatory from the description, 'proposal_id' is left undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'apply' and the resource 'stored proposal', and specifies atomic execution with a dry_run option. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on committing a previously saved proposal, though it doesn't explicitly name 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'propose' or 'impact'. There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering, or when to choose dry_run over apply. The agent must infer usage from context.

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