decision_commit

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint true, and idempotentHint true, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds a 'commit/confirm' semantic but does not disclose what happens to the existing draft, whether rationale is overwritten, or what a successful call returns.

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 purposeful sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes: the action, the object, and the target decision state are all included.

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 parameter schema and annotations, the definition is enough for basic invocation, but not complete for a mutation tool. There is no output schema, and the description does not clarify what 'commit' does to the decision lifecycle, so an agent must infer side effects and return behavior.

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 schema already describes all three parameters fully, so the description is not heavily burdened here. It reinforces 'rationale' as the confirmed rationale, but adds no extra meaning for 'id' or 'similarity_threshold' beyond the schema.

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 names a concrete action ('commit or confirm') and a clear object ('the rationale for a decision'), so the purpose is understandable. It also scopes the target to 'draft or extracted' decisions, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling decision_* tools such as decision_draft or decision_evidence.

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?

'For a draft or extracted decision' gives a useful usage context, but it does not say when this should not be used or mention an alternative among the decision_* family. The intended workflow position is implied rather than spelled out.

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