commit_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure and does so thoroughly: atomic context revalidation before commitment, 15-minute ticket expiry, dependency-based staleness conditions, idempotency on retry even after restart, and the return of durable IDs and audit. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the core action, the second explains expiry and staleness, the third covers idempotency and return behavior. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter commit tool with an output schema, the description covers commit semantics, failure conditions, idempotency, and return value. The only notable gap is not explicitly pointing to prepare_write as the source of action_id, but 'prepared action' already implies that workflow.

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 input schema only provides action_id as a string, so the description adds needed meaning by revealing that action_id is a ticket/prepared-action identifier that expires and is idempotent on retry. It does not explicitly state where action_id comes from, such as a prior prepare_write call, but the 'prepared action' wording gives adequate semantic grounding.

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?

States a clear verb ('Commit') and a specific object ('the prepared action') with meaningful qualifiers: 'exactly' and 'after atomic context revalidation.' The singular action_id and 'prepared action' wording distinguish it from siblings like commit_batch_write and commit_import, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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?

Provides useful operational context: tickets expire after 15 minutes and staleness depends on specific dependency changes, so an agent understands when a commit may fail. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over commit_batch_write or commit_import, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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