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

Annotations already convey that this is not a read-only operation and is not flagged destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context about the evaluation lifecycle and the meaning of 'dropped', but it does not explain side effects such as whether a commitment can be reopened or whether the status becomes permanently closed.

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 core usage is front-loaded and clearly structured. The final motivational sentence about closing the loop is somewhat extra, but it reinforces why the tool exists without making the description bloated.

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 simple three-parameter tool, the description covers what, when, and why. It explains the timing prerequisite, the status options, and the required verdict format. No output schema exists, but return-value documentation is not necessary for this kind of action.

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 67%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it defines the three statuses, clarifies that 'dropped' includes changed-mind or no-longer-relevant, and reinforces the one-line verdict requirement in the athlete's language. The id parameter is already well described in 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 says exactly what the tool does: evaluate one of the agent's own earlier instruction/commitment once its day has passed, and record whether it was kept, missed, or dropped. This is a specific verb plus resource that clearly separates it from list/get 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 a concrete condition for when to use the tool: only after the applicable day has passed and the session data is available. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the timing rule is clear and actionable.

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