commit_adom

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that commits persist pending changes and is required before unlock, which is essential for a commit tool. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error handling.

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 extremely concise, with a single-sentence functional description, a critical usage note, and clearly separated args/returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 simple commit tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, usage timing, and return format. It could mention error conditions or prerequisites, but is largely complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes the single parameter 'adom: ADOM name to commit', which adds minimal context beyond the schema property name and type. It does not provide format, constraints, or examples.

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 'Commit changes to an ADOM' using a specific verb and resource, and explicitly mentions 'Saves all pending changes made to the ADOM.' It also distinguishes from sibling tools like lock_adom and unlock_adom by specifying the required order of operations ('Must be called before unlocking to persist changes').

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool: 'Must be called before unlocking to persist changes.' It implies usage after making changes and before unlocking, but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives.

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