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

Even though no annotations are provided, the description discloses important behavioral details: it updates the profile only if the section hash matches the preview, implying a permanent write with a conditional guard. It could go further by explicitly stating that the commit is irreversible, but 'commit' itself implies finalization, and the user-confirmation requirement adds safety context.

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 three sentences long, placed in descending order of importance: purpose first, then conditions, then mechanism. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant text. It is concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers the necessary context: when to call, when not to call, the security condition, and the parameter's source. It is self-contained and leaves no critical gaps for an agent to misuse the 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?

The input schema already provides a rich description for changeId (returned by preview_profile_section_change, requires user confirmation). The tool-level description reiterates this but adds no new parameter-specific semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't degrade it but also doesn't add extra meaning.

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 function: 'Commit a previously previewed rules or profile memory change.' This specifies a precise verb ('commit') and resource ('profile section change'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like preview_profile_section_change and restore_profile_change by focusing on the finalization step.

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 provides explicit usage conditions: 'Call this only after the user explicitly confirms the exact full text shown for that preview' and 'If preview returned noChange=true, do not call commit.' It also notes the hash-check condition, effectively telling when the operation will succeed or fail. This is strong when-to-use guidance without needing to mention alternatives.

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