svn_commit

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. 'Guarded' is vague—does not explain the guard mechanism, failure behavior, or whether it is safe. The riskAck parameter is mentioned in schema but not in description, leaving the guard undefined.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence. No wasted words, but may be too brief. The structure efficiently conveys the core action and method.

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?

With 4 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no output schema, and 22 siblings, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, or the guard's conditions. The riskAck parameter is critical for safe use but unaddressed.

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 coverage is 50% (cwd, paths have descriptions; message, riskAck do not). The description adds 'explicit paths' and 'temp -F message file', providing context for paths and message usage. However, riskAck's purpose is not explained, limiting added value.

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 it is a 'svn commit' operation, which is specific. The term 'guarded' hints at safety but is ambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the temp file method, but could be clearer.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives. Among 22 SVN siblings, it does not differentiate when to use this vs svn_precommit or svn_revert. The agent must infer usage from the name.

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