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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the write-tier approval behavior: first use may require manager approval, with from-now-on vs just-once consequences. It also gives agent-facing guidance not to re-ask in chat after the approval card. This adds useful context without contradicting destructiveHint=true.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the approval note is separated into its own block. It is slightly wordy around "the card is the yes," but every sentence adds either selection guidance or approval behavior.

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 simple write tool with one required parameter and full schema coverage, the description plus annotations cover the key call-time decisions: what to share, with whom, when to call, and the approval flow. There is no output schema, so not describing return values is acceptable.

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 baseline of 3 applies and the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description only implies the recipient parameter via "with your spouse or partner," adding no significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Share a commitment with your spouse or partner so they can see it too." It also gives natural-language triggers, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like share_knowledge and share_playbook.

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?

Explicit trigger phrases are provided ("share this with my wife/husband" or "let [name] see this"), and it says to call on the first clear ask. It does not name exclusion cases or alternative share_* tools, but the commitment-specific wording makes the intended use clear.

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