confirm_change

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the statement is re-validated and re-executed before committing, and that commit requires a valid, unused, unexpired change_id. This goes beyond the tool name and helps the agent understand side effects and constraints, though it doesn't discuss failure modes or output.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-sentence summary, a short behavioral/constraint paragraph, and an Args section. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without repetition or 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?

The description covers the essential context for correct invocation: where change_id comes from, the re-execution behavior, and the expiry/unused constraints. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. It could mention what happens on invalid or expired IDs, but the current information is enough for a competent agent.

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 only declares change_id as a required string with zero coverage in its description. The tool description compensates by stating 'change_id: The id returned by propose_change,' explaining the parameter's origin and relationship to another tool. It would be stronger with validation rules, but for a single parameter this is sufficient.

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 and resource: 'Commit a change that propose_change previewed.' This clearly identifies the action and the object, and it distinguishes confirm_change from propose_change by positioning it as the commit step. The added sentence 'There is no way to commit a write without one' reinforces its unique role among the sibling tools.

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 states that change_id must come from propose_change and be unused and unexpired, which tells the agent when to call this tool: after a proposal exists and when a commit is intended. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'do not use for read-only queries,' but the lifecycle context makes the usage condition clear.

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