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

The description discloses key behaviors: exact-intent confirmation, the restriction on arbitrary provider calls, and the instruction to read current state and use the latest version before changing records. This aligns with the idempotent and destructive annotations.

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 a single dense sentence but covers the main actions, constraints, and a safety note without redundancy. It is structured and informative, though slightly long.

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?

Given the tool's complex schema with various action types (create_obligation, complete_occurrence, prepare_action, etc.), the description is insufficient. It summarizes the categories but doesn't explain how to use the oneOf structure or the role of idempotency/confirmation fields. More detail would be needed for full contextual completeness.

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 description does not explain any of the parameters (project_id, data, idempotency_key, confirmation_token) or the complex nested schema. It only hints at the latest version requirement and confirmation, but not explicitly tied to parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%.

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 tool's purpose: manage obligations, record evidence, and handle allowlisted internal actions. It specifies multiple action categories and constraints (requires Startup or higher, no arbitrary provider calls), making it distinct from other tools.

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 provides usage conditions (requires Startup or higher) and behavior constraints (exact-intent confirmation, no arbitrary provider calls). However, it doesn't explicitly compare with alternative tools like tasks.create or projects.create, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this command versus those.

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