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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false but say nothing about flow. The description adds real behavioral context: the assistant resolves fund and investor, solicits missing details, and requires user confirmation before anything is persisted — i.e., this is a draft-then-confirm mutation, not an immediate write. That is meaningful value beyond the annotations, though rate limits, permission requirements, and failure modes are unaddressed.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the action and followed by the interaction flow. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly covers what the tool does and that a confirmation step precedes any write, which is the key thing an agent must know before calling. It stops short of describing what the tool returns or what happens on rejection, leaving a small 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 description coverage is 100% (request, timeZone, team all documented), so the schema already carries parameter meaning and the baseline of 3 applies. The description only loosely signals that fund and investor come from the free-text request rather than dedicated params, adding marginal clarification.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: recording a new commitment by an investor in one of the user's funds. It is clearly distinct from edit_commitment in intent (new vs. modify), though it never names that sibling explicitly. A capable agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when an investor makes a commitment to a fund. The confirmation-before-write note hints at the workflow, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., edit_commitment for existing commitments, show_confirmation for reviewing a draft).

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