commit_page_draft

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden and does so excellently. It discloses incremental persistence, per-request timeout, mode-specific behavior, progress saving, and failure recovery semantics (page_id + committed_count). This goes far beyond a generic 'commit draft' statement.

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 tightly written sentences with clear emphasis (INCREMENTALLY, dry_run=true, RESUMABLE). No wasted words, and the structure naturally guides from primary purpose to operational modes to failure handling.

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 complexity (incremental, resumable, multi-request), the description is highly complete. It covers the process, retry behavior, and mode semantics. It does not describe return values or stats preview details, but the absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: it explains the default dry_run=true, contrasts the two modes, and ties draft_id to the resumability mechanism. This enriches the schema descriptions rather than merely repeating them.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Persist a local page draft to the backend INCREMENTALLY' and clarifies the one-section-per-request behavior. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like add_draft_section, get_page_draft, and clear_page_draft. The dry_run vs false modes further specify the tool's scope.

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 explains when to use dry_run=true (validate/preview) versus dry_run=false (create and persist), and notes resumability for retries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use X instead,' but the mode guidance provides strong practical direction for the primary use case.

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