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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that this is a write operation that removes access and may require approval on first use. This provides useful behavioral context, though it could mention if the action is reversible or other side effects.

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 two terse sentences plus a bracketed approval note. It is front-loaded with the core action and effect, wasting no words. Every part earns its place.

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?

The description adequately covers the main action and approval context. The high schema coverage compensates for not repeating param details. Without an output schema, the agent can infer a void return. Minor gaps like what happens to the commitment remain, but overall complete enough.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with 100% description coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters (e.g., explaining how to identify the commitment via ID or title, or that companyId is needed for company-scoped tools). Thus, no added value 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 clearly states the action 'Stop sharing a commitment with someone' and the effect 'Removes their access.' It directly contrasts with sibling 'share_commitment' and differentiates from 'unshare_knowledge' by specifying the resource as 'commitment'.

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 includes a write-tier and approval context note, hinting at when the tool might need authorization. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to use this vs. alternatives like 'share_commitment' or 'unshare_knowledge,' though the purpose implies the specific use case.

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