Mark a commitment as completed to update its status and record optional notes, ensuring accurate tracking of progress and accountability.
Mark a commitment as completed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | Optional notes about completion | |
| commitment_id | Yes | The commitment ID to mark as completed |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior beyond the action. It does not disclose whether completion is reversible, what state changes occur, how the commitment is affected, or any permissions or side effects.
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 clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object and remains appropriately sized for the simple operation it describes.
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 two-parameter operation, the description plus schema provides enough to make a basic call. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks disclosure of side effects, completion semantics, and expected response behavior, leaving a noticeable gap.
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%, and the schema already documents commitment_id and notes adequately. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing the completion action, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a concrete action ('Mark') on a specific resource ('a commitment') with a clear outcome ('completed'). It is easily distinguishable from siblings like atlas_track_commitment, which implies tracking rather than finalizing a commitment.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as atlas_track_commitment or atlas_update_goal. It also does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or whether it should be used only after certain criteria are met.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.