optimize_commitment

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: compute-only evaluation, no discounts for storage/database/egress, returns recommended scenario by lowest 3-year TCO. Also notes versioning (v0.6.0 uses cloud-level averages, per-family tiers in v0.6.x). No annotation contradiction. Could mention input validation or error states, but overall transparent for a non-destructive tool.

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?

Description is a single informative paragraph that efficiently covers purpose, scope, scenarios, output, and limitations. No wasted sentences. Could be split into bullet points for readability, but current structure is acceptable and front-loaded.

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?

Given 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description provides essential context but lacks complete guidance. It explains output and scope but does not clarify required parameters (only compute) or the structure of nested inputs. Missing details on return format beyond text. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 only 30%, so description must compensate. The description adds context about scenarios and output, but does not explain individual parameters beyond listing scenario options. For example, it does not clarify that 'compute' array requires vcpus and memory_gb or that 'cloud' defaults to source_cloud then 'aws' (though schema has some descriptions). Partial compensation.

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?

Clearly states it computes per-scenario cost/savings/payback for compute commitment options, lists specific scenarios and return fields (monthly cost, upfront, 3-year total, savings %, payback months, recommended scenario). Distinct from sibling tools like compare_total_cost_of_ownership by focusing specifically on commitment options for compute.

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?

Implies use for commitment decision-making but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_total_cost_of_ownership. Mentions compute-only scope and that per-family RI tiers are not yet available, which gives some guidance on limitations but lacks direct comparison guidance.

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