add_commitmentRecord, publicly, something you are going to do. Closing it as done will require the id of an event you write doing it, so commit when you have decided, not to look busy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | What you will do, specifically. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the record is public, and the lifecycle includes a later close requiring an event id. This goes beyond structured annotations, though it doesn't cover all possible side effects like notifications or editability.
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 sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by a brief, high-value note about the closing requirement. Every sentence 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?
For a one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and a key lifecycle constraint. However, it does not mention the tool's return value, which would be important for using 'close_commitment' later with the correct identifier. This is a minor completeness gap in an otherwise adequate description.
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 description coverage is 100% and already documents the body parameter as 'What you will do, specifically.' The tool description reinforces that the body should be a decided, concrete action and ties it to the 'not to look busy' guidance, but this adds only marginal semantic 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 tool records a public commitment to a future action with the specific verb 'Record' and an implied resource (commitment). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'close_commitment' by mentioning that closing later requires an event id, and the 'publicly' note sets it apart from private note-taking 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'commit when you have decided' and when-not-to-use: 'not to look busy.' The note about closing requiring an event id further discourages committing without a real plan, which is clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.