commit_editing_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: lint check, atomic save, deregistration, and abort condition. Missing details on potential side effects (e.g., other transactions) but sufficient for primary use.

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 front-loaded with the main action and structured logically (lint, save, deregister, abort condition, returns). Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (commit with lint validation) and a simple schema (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers behavior and return fields adequately. Lacks parameter detail but otherwise complete.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in the description). The sole parameter 'transaction_id' is implied by the tool name but not clarified in the description. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.

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 action: linting the in-memory tree, atomic save to disk, and deregistration. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'apply_edits' and 'cancel_editing_transaction' by detailing the commit-and-validate process.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use (to commit after edits) and the abort condition with a 'saved=False' return, indicating the caller should fix and retry. Does not explicitly compare to alternatives but context is clear.

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