nexo_change_commit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not explain side effects (e.g., overwriting an existing link), idempotency, error behavior, or what happens if the entry ID is invalid. The single sentence leaves the agent guessing about the tool's full behavior.

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, consisting of a single sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and lacks fluff, though it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It does not specify return value, error conditions, or success indication. For a linking operation, the agent would benefit from knowing what the tool returns (e.g., the updated entry or a status).

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 already describes both parameters (id as 'Change log entry ID', commit_ref as 'Git commit hash') with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action: linking a change log entry (resource) to a git commit hash. It uses a specific verb ('Link') and resource ('change log entry'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'nexo_change_log' (which presumably lists entries) and 'nexo_change_search'.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., whether the change log entry must exist), nor does it mention when not to use it (e.g., if the entry already has a commit hash). No explicit context or exclusions.

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