tree_commit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses atomicity, all-or-nothing refusal, that nothing is written when refused, that refused reds are returned by name, and that acknowledgments are recorded on the root.

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 definition is dense and front-loads the core action and invariant. It is longer than ideal and uses considerable jargon, but nearly every clause contributes useful behavior or routing information.

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?

It covers the mutation behavior, failure mode, acknowledgment mechanism, and sibling routing needed to call it correctly. The remaining gap is that `red`/`green` vocabulary is not fully defined, which may require inference or the sibling vocabulary tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully defines the `changes` item shape (`op: set|delete`, `path`, optional `node`) and explains the `acknowledge` parameter as naming refused reds; only `node` semantics remain thin.

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 a specific action—applying a change-set atomically to the committed tree—and explicitly differentiates this tool from sibling `tree_set`. It is somewhat reliant on domain jargon (`red set`, `green`), but the core purpose is clear.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this instead of `tree_set`: when a change should stand or fall with its consequences. It also gives a concrete alternative case—legitimately incomplete drafts belong in one change-set with what completes them.

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