ilias_commit_scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description's 'local bookkeeping only; nothing is sent to ILIAS' largely reinforces the openWorldHint signal rather than adding new information. It does usefully confirm the write is purely local and non-destructive to remote state, but it never states what the write overwrites, i.e., that any existing baseline is replaced.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the safety caveat. No filler, though the parenthetical about check_id would read better as an explicit statement about the parameter.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is limited to the overwrite semantics of the baseline and the scan_id/check_id ambiguity, which are real but narrow for a one-parameter local bookkeeping tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for the single scan_id parameter. It partly does so by implying the value is a scan or check identifier, but the parenthetical '(pass its check_id)' names the value differently from the schema's 'scan_id', leaving an agent unsure whether a check ID is a valid value for that field.

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 uses a concrete verb ('make ... the new baseline') and names the two sibling tools whose output feeds it (ilias_scan and ilias_check_all), so an agent can tell this apart from the scan-generating tools. It is not a full 5 because the resource is only named indirectly ('a scan, or a whole ilias_check_all check') and the ID naming ('check_id' here vs. 'scan_id' in the schema) muddies what is being promoted.

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?

Usage is implied: call this after running ilias_scan or ilias_check_all to promote the result to the baseline. There is no explicit statement of when not to call it, whether the referenced scan must already exist, or whether re-committing replaces a prior baseline.

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