commit_material_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds the crucial non-obvious trait that the undo stack is flushed, i.e. the commit is irreversible, which an agent cannot infer from the annotations alone. It still doesn't say what happens to uncommitted changes on failure, but the core risk is disclosed.

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, zero filler, with the state-mutating effect front-loaded and the timing constraint second. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers what it does, its irreversible effect, and its ordering relative to reload_bridge. Only the failure/partial-commit behavior is unstated, which is a small residual gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The empty schema plus the description's framing ('en cours' = current pending changes) makes it clear the tool operates on ambient state rather than on arguments.

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?

Names a specific action (committing pending material changes) and states its concrete side effect: the undo stack is emptied. That distinguishes it from the sibling undo_material_changes, which obviously does the opposite. It stops short of an explicit contrast statement, but the verb+resource+effect combination is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('quand l'utilisateur valide le résultat') and an explicit ordering constraint relative to the sibling reload_bridge, which is exactly the kind of sequencing guidance an agent needs. It does not state when to avoid calling it, but the 'validate the result' condition implicitly excludes speculative calls.

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