tmcra_turn_commit

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that a turn is committed and reconciled, without explaining persistence guarantees, side effects, failure behavior, idempotency handling, or how consistency and slow_policy affect execution.

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 single sentence is compact and front-loaded with the primary action and objective. However, it is concise to the point of being under-specified for a tool with this many parameters and behavioral nuances.

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?

This is a complex, mutation-like tool with eight parameters, no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no usage context, yet the description provides almost none of the information needed to invoke it safely. The overlap with tmcra_reconcile further increases the risk of incorrect selection.

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%, and the description does not name or explain any of the eight parameters. Required fields such as turn_id, assistant_message_id, and assistant_content appear only as titles, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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 a specific action—commit—and a specific resource, the real user/assistant turn, with an explicit outcome of reconciling to terminal state. However, it does not clearly distinguish itself from the sibling tmcra_reconcile, whose name overlaps with the phrase 'reconcile it to terminal state.'

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus tmcra_turn_prepare, tmcra_reconcile, or tmcra_ingest. The description implies this tool finalizes a prepared turn, but that sequencing is left entirely to inference.

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