commit_evaluator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that committing creates a read-only version, implying immutability, and emphasizes the prerequisite of a successful test. However, it does not mention reversibility, permissions, or the fate of the draft. Still, the key behavioral traits are covered, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 two sentences plus an IMPORTANT note. It front-loads the purpose, then provides critical usage constraints and next steps. No filler or redundancy.

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 lacking an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the action, prerequisite, and follow-up step. It explains that committing alone doesn't render in UI, guiding the agent to create_pipeline. For a commit tool, this is complete.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (evaluator_id: 'Evaluator ID to commit.' and version_description: 'Commit message describing what changed in this version.'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Commit the current draft of a grader, creating a new read-only version.' It uses a specific verb (commit) and resource (grader draft), and the result (new read-only version) is explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling 'commit_workflow' by focusing on evaluators.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'IMPORTANT: Only commit AFTER a successful test_evaluator run.' It also tells the agent the next step: 'use create_evaluation_pipeline to wrap the grader in a V2 pipeline that renders in the UI.' This clearly defines when to use it and what to do after, differentiating from alternatives like commit_workflow.

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