doc_commit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the critical lock-release behavior and the expected_hash requirement, which signal optimistic concurrency. However, it does not state what happens on hash mismatch, whether the write is destructive, or how errors are surfaced.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the required credentials, and the lock-release behavior. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 8 parameters and zero annotation support. The description is too sparse to fully guide an agent on safe invocation: it omits content encoding options, optional metadata parameters, and the exact relationship to doc_checkout/doc_release. The lock semantics help, but the overall picture remains incomplete.

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 for the 8 parameters. It only explains lock_token, expected_hash, and keep_lock. It leaves doc_id, content, content_base64, message, and agent_id unexplained, especially the important distinction between content and content_base64.

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 operation: 'Grava a edição do checkout' (saves the checkout edit), using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the lock_token/expected_hash requirement and lock-release behavior, which separates it from doc_checkout, doc_release, and doc_update.

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 gives explicit prerequisites: lock_token and expected_hash must be present, and it explains the keep_lock behavior. This strongly implies it should be used after a checkout, when the agent holds a lock and wants to persist edits. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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