fabricsCommitFabricCandidate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Commit' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens upon success/failure. The example syntax adds minor value but doesn't address core behavioral traits.

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 appropriately brief with two sentences. The first states the purpose clearly, and the second provides usage syntax. However, the second sentence could be more front-loaded with critical information rather than just syntax example.

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?

For a mutation tool ('Commit') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'committing' entails operationally, what happens to the candidate after commit, whether changes are reversible, what the tool returns, or error conditions. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it only provides a generic example of argument passing without explaining any parameters specifically. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Commit') and the resource ('a specific candidate configuration'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fabricsRevertFabricCandidate' or 'fabricsReviewFabricCandidate', which appear to operate on similar candidate configurations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions how to pass arguments but offers no context about prerequisites, timing, or relationship to other candidate-related tools like 'fabricsGetFabricCandidate' or 'fabricsRevertFabricCandidate'.

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