Commit a freee application action

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

Annotations already flag destructive/write behavior; the description adds valuable extra context: unknown writes must never be retried, known preview errors may be reprepared under the same policy, and 休暇 approvals revalidate the dependency check and fingerprint before clicking. No statement contradicts the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence carries operational meaning, but the policy/retry/dependency clauses make it dense and longer than necessary. It earns its place for a destructive tool, yet could be tightened.

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 high-stakes commit action with no output schema, the description covers the matching requirement, sequential usage, skip behavior, retry constraints, and a special dependency revalidation case. It misses only minor details like explicit auth/rate limits, which are less critical here.

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 100%, so the schema carries parameter documentation. The description references 'fingerprint' and 'preview' but adds little beyond what the schema already states about confirm and fingerprint semantics.

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 concrete verb ('Change') and resource ('one real application'), and qualifies that it happens after preview/authorization matching for the exact action or an active scoped policy. It does not explicitly say 'approves or returns' in its main clause, but the policy language and action parameter make the commit behavior clear.

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?

Explains the sequential single-item usage model, says to skip nonmatches or ambiguous items, and gives explicit retry vs. never-retry rules for preview errors and unknown writes. It does not name sibling tools directly, but the prepare/commit pairing and exclusions are strong enough to guide selection.

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