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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, but the description explicitly says 'Confirm destructive or irreversible status changes'—implying the action may be destructive or irreversible. This directly contradicts the annotation. No other behavioral traits (idempotency, effects, reversibility) are disclosed. This is a serious inconsistency.

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 only two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the core action. The safety note is brief and adds relevant caution. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage from safety).

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 a write operation with no output schema, the description should clarify return behavior, side effects, and prerequisites. It does none of that, and the safety line actually contradicts the annotation. The tool has only one parameter, but the description still leaves critical gaps about what happens after calling it.

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 explain the single 'id' parameter. It only says 'Tell Promise that a commitment or waiting-on item is complete', from which one can infer 'id' refers to that item, but no explicit detail is given (e.g., must be a commitment ID, accepted formats). The parameter meaning is largely left to assumption.

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 verb ('Tell Promise that... is complete') and a clear resource (commitment or waiting-on item). It goes beyond a tautology and is easily distinguishable from siblings like 'get_commitment' or 'capture_note'. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The only extra text is a safety instruction about confirming destructive changes, which is not usage guidance. An agent gets no help deciding between marking resolved and, say, creating a follow-up.

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