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

Description discloses that TTL defaults to 5 minutes and that a sweeper mechanism exists, adding behavioral context beyond the annotations (which show readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false). However, it does not detail what happens on duplicate `id` or error cases.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Efficient and clear.

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?

Description covers creation context and TTL but omits return value (e.g., the created commitment object) and error conditions. For a creation tool, return info is important; absence reduces 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?

Schema coverage is only 20%; the description adds no per-parameter explanation. While `target_kind` has a helpful schema description, parameters like `id`, `raw_text`, and `target_id` lack meaning. The description should compensate for low coverage but does not.

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?

Description clearly states the tool records a promise made by the agent, specifying the context (e.g., via a `say` call). It distinguishes from sibling tools like `extend_commitment` and `touch_commitment`, which are for keeping commitments alive.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (after a promise via `say`), mentions default TTL, and directs agents to `extend_commitment` for long-running promises and `touch_commitment` for heartbeats. Provides clear context and alternatives.

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