commit_intent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool's purpose (submitting commitments with privacy controls) and use cases, but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens after commitment (e.g., is it reversible?). It does not contradict annotations (none exist).

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage contexts. It avoids redundancy, but the second sentence could be slightly more concise (e.g., merging privacy aspects). Overall, it earns its place with minimal waste.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the tool's purpose and use cases well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, error responses) and does not address output or post-commitment behavior, which is important for a tool with privacy-sensitive operations.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond the high-level mention of privacy controls ('Control what is revealed: hide amounts, identity...'), which aligns with but does not expand upon the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Submit a sealed-bid commitment for a trading intent') and resource ('trading intent'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_intent (which creates intents) or explain_intent (which explains them). It also specifies the protocol context (Hashlock protocol — hashlock.markets).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('peer-to-peer trading, private negotiations, agent-to-agent settlement, dark pool orders, or any crypto exchange where privacy and zero slippage matter'), but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., when to use validate_intent instead).

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