google_commit_edit

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions 'publishes the changes' but does not clarify side effects like whether the edit session becomes invalid or if changes are irreversible. This is insufficient for a commit action.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words, but could benefit from slight expansion on behavioral details without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema and only 2 well-described parameters, the description still lacks completeness. It fails to explain the lifecycle impact on the edit session (e.g., finality, immutability) which is crucial for a commit operation.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with full description, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters, but schema already provides adequate information.

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 commits and publishes pending changes from an edit session, using specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like google_create_edit and google_delete_edit.

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 implies usage after making changes in an edit session but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The context is clear but limited.

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