company_commitments

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

The phrase 'provider effects remain external' hints at side-effect containment, but there is no explicit statement about read-only vs write behavior, return values, or what happens when proofs are verified. With no annotations provided, this level of transparency is insufficient.

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 sentence without wasted words, but its structure is ambiguous with multiple clauses that could be interpreted in different ways. It is concise but not effectively structured for clarity.

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?

With seven parameters, no explanation of inputs, outputs, or error conditions, and a vague description, the tool is far from complete. An agent would need extensive additional context to use it correctly.

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?

All seven parameters are undocumented in the description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description provides no meaning for names like 'bundle_json', 'operation', or 'payload_json', leaving agents to guess at their roles.

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 mentions 'inspect or advance commitments' but does not define what a commitment is or what 'scoped lifecycle' means, leaving the tool's purpose ambiguous. It does not clearly distinguish this tool from other commitment-related tools, though no immediate sibling is apparent.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions for choosing 'inspect' over 'advance'. The description provides no situational context or decision criteria.

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