Commit a freee application action

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

Annotations already indicate destructive, non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds critical context: it changes a real application (real-world effect), requires a matching preview and explicit user approval, and must not be retried. This goes beyond the structured hints and is essential for safe operation.

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 only two sentences, yet it packs essential action, prerequisites, and prohibitions. It is front-loaded with the action and condition, and every word contributes meaning. No fluff.

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 high-risk destructive nature of the tool, the description covers the core safety rules: preview matching, explicit approval, no direct calls, no automatic retries. It could explicitly mention the prepare tool by name, but 'matching preview' implies it given the sibling tools. The lack of an output schema and the strong annotations make this sufficient.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by linking the fingerprint parameter to 'matching preview' and the confirm parameter to 'explicit current-message approval,' giving safety-related meaning to these fields that the schema alone does not fully convey.

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 states it changes one real application, which identifies the action and scope, but the verb 'change' is less precise than 'commit' or 'apply.' The title 'Commit a freee application action' and tool name clarify intent, and the mention of 'matching preview' distinguishes it from the prepare tool.

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 explicitly says to use it 'only after matching preview and explicit current-message approval,' providing clear timing. It also says 'Never call directly or retry automatically,' which is an explicit exclusion warning. This gives strong guidance on when to use the tool versus alternatives and emphasizes the two-phase protocol.

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