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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds valuable context: it marks the commitment as cancelled, distinguishes cancellation from completion, and explains the write-tier approval behavior ('first use may require a manager's approval', 'just-once approval re-asks next time'). This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 first sentence immediately states the core action, and the second provides usage triggers and the sibling alternative. The approval paragraph is somewhat dense but each clause carries operational value, so it earns its place without being bloated.

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 destructive action with no output schema, the description covers the core semantics, when to use it, the key alternative, and the approval interaction. The schema covers parameter identification. A brief note on irreversibility or side effects would make it fully complete, but nothing essential is missing.

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 all four parameters, including the optional reason, companyId, title_search, and commitment_id. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 and resource ('Cancel a commitment') and clarifies the semantic distinction from completion ('without completing it — marks it cancelled'). It explicitly names the sibling alternative complete_commitment, so an agent can disambiguate without opening other definitions.

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?

Provides concrete trigger phrases ('cancel that', 'never mind, drop it', 'that's not happening anymore') and an explicit exclusion ('For finished work, use complete_commitment instead'). The approval-flow guidance also tells the agent exactly when to invoke the tool and not to re-ask after the user approves.

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