commit_batch_write

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses critical behaviors: atomicity, audit evidence, freshness/actor/workspace/version checks, 15-minute expiry, safe retry across restarts, and failure semantics including not committing partial items and refreshing stale reviews. This exceeds typical transparency.

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 concise at five sentences, front-loading the core action and then detailing checks, expiry, retry, and failure. Each sentence adds value, though the structure could be slightly more streamlined (e.g., grouping related constraints). Overall, it is efficient and well-organized.

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?

The description covers essential aspects: atomicity, validation checks, expiry, retry safety, and failure handling. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., must call prepare_batch_write first) explicitly, but it is implied by 'prepared batch'. Return value details are presumably covered by the output schema. It is sufficiently complete for a commit operation.

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 provides no description for action_id (coverage 0%), and the description only references it in the retry context. It implies action_id is the batch identifier but does not explicitly state it is the ID returned by prepare_batch_write. The description partially compensates but could be more explicit about the parameter's origin and purpose.

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 tool commits a prepared batch atomically with audit evidence, distinguishing it from siblings like prepare_batch_write and commit_write. The verb 'commit' and resource 'prepared batch' are specific, and the mention of 'all-or-nothing' and checks clarifies its role.

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 implies it should be used after preparing a batch and provides guidance on retry and failure behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with commit_write or commit_import, nor state when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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