action_commit

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

Annotations already declare destructive and idempotent behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds the useful behavioral fact that the token is consumed and must be fresh, and that the action was previously previewed, but it does not describe failure behavior or post-consumption consequences.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, the key precondition, and the source of the action in just nine words, which is appropriately concise for a simple two-parameter tool.

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?

The tool has only two primitive string parameters, no output schema, and annotations already cover destructive/idempotent/open-world aspects. The description establishes the critical precondition (fresh token) and the effect (perform previewed action), which is sufficient for this low-complexity commit tool, though it could still mention what happens if the token is stale.

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 tool description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only loosely clarifies the token as an 'approval token' and provides no additional meaning for approval_id or how the two fields relate, leaving a real gap.

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 says the tool consumes an approval token and executes the action that was previewed, which identifies a specific commit/execute role in an approval flow. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the distinction from the many propose/draft siblings is implicit and adequate.

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 phrase 'consume a fresh approval token' implies this is the step to run after an approval has been obtained, and this is useful guidance. However, the description does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as proposal or draft tools, leaving some inference required.

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