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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals that restating an existing promise replaces it instead of duplicating (matching idempotentHint), that nothing is considered active until the developer confirms on the project page, and that account_token is required for ownership. It also discloses that sensitive content is refused and nothing is stored, adding meaningful behavior the annotations alone do not convey.

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 lengthy but each sentence contributes a distinct fact: persistence, replacement, confirmation, ownership, and secret refusal. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the closing 'This one writes' is a useful contrast marker, though slightly redundant with the first sentence.

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 only two required string parameters, no output schema, and low structural complexity, the description thoroughly covers what the tool does, when to use it, what happens on repeat calls, the confirmation workflow, the auth requirement, and prohibited content. An agent has enough context to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the account_token as the developer's own token proving ownership, clarifying the promise should be in the developer's own words, and adding the security constraint about avoiding personal details. This adds real value beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 and resource: 'saves it as a promise on the project' and explains persistence across sessions. The examples make the intended use unmistakable, and 'This one writes' clearly marks it as a write tool, separating it from read-style siblings like boosthis_promises or boosthis_list_rules.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'if the developer says something should stay true from now on' with concrete examples of what kind of statements qualify. It also provides a clear when-not by refusing passwords, keys, and personal details, though it does not name an alternative sibling tool for reading or managing existing promises.

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