Capture client commitments and deadlines to monitor progress and maintain accountability.
Log a commitment the client has made, with a deadline for accountability tracking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Category (e.g., 'career', 'health', 'business', 'personal') | |
| deadline | Yes | Deadline for this commitment (ISO date format) | |
| description | Yes | What the client committed to doing |
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 behavioral disclosure. 'Log' implies a write operation, but it does not mention whether duplicate commitments are allowed, whether it updates existing records, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the deadline and purpose efficiently.
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 tool with only three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and context. It does not explain return values or lifecycle interactions with sibling tools, but those are not strictly necessary for a basic logging 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond reinforcing that a deadline is part of the commitment, so the baseline 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 clearly states the action 'Log' and the resource 'commitment', with the deadline being a key component and accountability tracking as the purpose. It is specific enough to understand the core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like atlas_complete_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 clear context: use this when a client has made a commitment that needs a deadline for accountability tracking. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for most cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.