commit_action

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's claim that it's the only mutating tool is consistent. It adds extra context about the token's single-use and expiration, which is valuable beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't elaborate on the specifics of the mutation, but that's acceptable given annotations cover the core safety profile.

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 and well-structured: it opens with the purpose, then immediately gives the critical timing and token constraints, and ends with a strong differentiator. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity (single token param), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, token semantics, and its unique role. An output schema is available, so return format isn't needed. This is fully adequate for effective usage.

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 minimal info for the token parameter (just 'Token'). The description enriches it by stating the token is single-use and expires, implying it should come from a prepare_* tool. This adds meaningful semantic context despite the 0% schema description coverage.

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's purpose: to carry out an action that was previously prepared and shown to the user. It also differentiates from sibling tools by noting it's the only one that changes anything, making its 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?

The description explicitly specifies when to call it ('Only call this after the user has seen the preview from a prepare_* tool and explicitly approved it') and provides critical constraints (token is single-use and expires). This is clear, actionable guidance with no ambiguity.

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