fusion_commit_action

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), it discloses that the token is single-use and that a refusal returns the pod's message and named fields rather than a normal summary. This materially changes how the agent should handle the response and subsequent user interaction.

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 compact and front-loaded with a clear safety warning. The prose and Args section reinforce the critical confirmation requirement with minimal redundancy and no filler.

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?

It covers the token lifecycle, the confirmation requirement, direct edit behavior, single-use semantics, and refusal behavior. Since an output schema exists, not listing return fields is acceptable; the description is complete enough for safe and correct 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for both parameters. It clearly defines token as coming from fusion_prepare_action and confirmed as only set after explicit user confirmation, adding meaning the schema's titles and default value do not provide.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a prepared action,' and immediately signals that it changes data. It also distinguishes itself from fusion_prepare_action by referencing the token required from that prepare step, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

It states exact preconditions: a token from fusion_prepare_action and confirmed=True only after the user has seen the preview and said yes. It also explains the failure path—a refused attempt needs a fresh prepare—so the agent knows when to go back to the sibling tool instead of retrying.

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