ecg_commit_placements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a staging operation that does not persist durable memory, and that exchange_id comes from the prepare step. It omits idempotency/repeat-call behavior and any permission requirements, but the core write-vs-stage distinction is explicit.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the key non-durability fact, then details the workflow. Appropriately sized with no filler, though the trailing warning sentence is slightly fragmented from the main flow.

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 3-required-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the workflow adequately but leaves gaps: the shape/contents of the placements array and the effect of calling this repeatedly are not addressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully documents exchange_id (the prep_id from ecg_prepare_placements) but leaves placements and session_id unexplained, so only one of three required parameters gets added meaning.

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?

States a specific verb ('Stage') plus the resource ('the agent's chosen placement actions') and immediately clarifies the non-durable nature with 'Does not write durable memory.' It implies separation from siblings by referencing prepare and commit steps, though it doesn't name them as explicit alternatives.

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 clear context: record merge/replace/drop decisions before the user approves via ecg_commit_step, and warns that dropped placements must not be sent later as approved. It names the downstream sibling but does not state when NOT to use it versus ecg_prepare_placements.

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