decision_commit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a potentially destructive write operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that—it does not explain what is destroyed (e.g., overwrites existing rationale?), whether the operation is reversible, or what state the decision node must be in (e.g., must be a draft). It essentially restates the annotation implications without new details.

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 a single sentence of 8 words, which is appropriately concise. It front-loades the action and resource without unnecessary words. However, it could add a bit more useful information without becoming verbose, so it does not achieve a perfect score.

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 tool has 3 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens after committing (e.g., return values, side effects on related data). It omits prerequisites (e.g., 'decision_draft' must have been used first) and error conditions. For a potentially destructive action, more context is needed for safe invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the input schema provides. For example, it does not explain that 'similarity_threshold' overrides an environment variable for this commit, nor does it clarify the difference between 'commit' and 'confirm' in terms of parameter handling.

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 uses the verb 'commit or confirm' and specifies the resource as 'rationale for a draft or extracted decision.' It clearly indicates the action and target, though the dual verbs introduce slight ambiguity. It distinguishes from siblings like 'decision_draft' and 'decision_evidence' by focusing on finalizing the rationale, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all related tools.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context about prerequisites (e.g., required existence of a draft) or situations where another tool like 'decision_supersede' or 'decision_add' might be more appropriate. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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