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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and covers multiple behavioral traits: a 60/hour rate limit returning 429, KVKK-safe scrubbing of phones/emails in the note, scoping by x-temsor-pbx-key when set, idle pricing, and the exact POST endpoint. It stops short of stating irreversible side effects or what happens if the promise is already closed, but it is substantially transparent.

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 dense but efficient: a one-line action statement, the exact request shape, and key operational constraints. No sentence is redundant, and the core action is front-loaded before cost and endpoint details.

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 three-parameter mutation with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the endpoint, required body, scrubbing behavior, rate limit, scoping, and cost. It is missing only explicit preconditions (e.g., promise must exist and be open) and non-429 error behavior, which keeps it just short of complete.

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 defines promise_id, status values, and note constraints. The description adds the endpoint body format and reiterates that the note is scrubbed, but does not materially enrich parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Mark an open promise kept or broken' with an optional note. It also positions the tool as the writable counterpart to the read-only PBX tools ('makes the sales demo writable, not read-only'), which distinguishes it from siblings like pbx_promises and pbx_calls.

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 implies this is the write/close operation for open promises and is not for read-only queries, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it (e.g., reopening with pbx_promises_reopen). The 'writable, not read-only' phrasing gives context, but there are no clear exclusion conditions.

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