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

Annotations only declare that this is non-read-only, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the edit is two-phase, requiring user confirmation before any write, and it can ripple into already-sent capital calls. It stops short of saying which fields are editable or what the confirmation flow returns.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler. The scope constraint (only named fields) is front-loaded and the confirmation caveat follows immediately.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: it edits an existing commitment, only named fields, and the change is gated on user confirmation. Missing only which fields exist and how the paired confirmation call fits in.

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%, so the schema already documents the team, request and timeZone parameters. The description only echoes that the 'fields they name' drive the edit, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb (edit) and resource (an existing commitment) scoped to the user's funds, and clarifies that only the fields the user names are touched. It implicitly separates itself from capital_company_create_commitment, but never names a sibling explicitly.

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 conveys the workflow context (the edit is staged and shown to the user for confirmation before writing), which implies the follow-up confirmation step. However it never states when to prefer this over create_commitment or update_fund, and gives no exclusion criteria.

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