commit_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: atomic commit, decision coverage requirements, allowed actions, link dropping/reporting, staleness conditions, and safe retry. These are critical behavioral traits not visible in the schema.

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 dense but every sentence adds operational value. The purpose is front-loaded, and the decision constraints, staleness rule, and retry safety are organized logically with 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?

Given that an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed. The description covers decision validation, staleness handling, and idempotent retry – all essential for correct invocation of this commit tool.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining the decisions object with allowed actions, record_id semantics, and clarification requirements. It also clarifies that action_id refers to the prepared import action, making both parameters meaningful.

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 states a specific verb ('commit') and resource ('prepared import'), and the atomicity qualifier adds precision. It is clearly distinct from sibling commit tools like commit_write or commit_batch_write by referencing the prepare step.

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 explicitly ties the tool to prepare_import by requiring decisions to match needs_decision and instructing to prepare again if stale. This gives clear when-to-use context, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative commit tools.

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