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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the write-tier approval flow in detail: first use may require manager approval, from-now-on vs just-once approval behavior, and 'the card is the yes — do not re-ask in chat'. It also warns callers to set only changed fields, which is a meaningful behavioral constraint. Nothing here contradicts the destructiveHint=true annotation.

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 front-loaded with purpose and examples, followed by routing and approval behavior. All three paragraphs earn their place; there is no filler or repetition of schema descriptions.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no required fields and no output schema, the description covers when to use it, what fields to include, how to find the target, and the approval interaction. The main behaviors needed to invoke correctly are present, and remaining details like companyId are well documented in the schema.

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, but the description adds value by explaining the partial-update semantics ('Only set the field(s) being changed') and by clarifying target resolution via commitment_id or fuzzy title_search. It does not need to repeat schema-level details like date format or domain values.

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: 'Update fields of an existing commitment' and enumerates the exact editable fields. It also distinguishes itself from complete_commitment ('not marking it done'), so an agent can disambiguate without inspecting sibling schemas.

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 explicit trigger examples ('change the due date on...', 'rename that commitment to...', 'move X to next week') and an explicit exclusion ('not marking it done — use complete_commitment for that'). The routing note adds further guidance about setting only changed fields and resolving the target via commitment_id or title_search.

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