Update Commitment Contract

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructiveness. The description adds that this is a partial update (only supplied fields changed) and that it returns the modified object. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 relatively concise, with two main sentences and additional API endpoint information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and key usage hint (partial update). The API details could be considered extra but are not excessive.

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 tool's complexity (33 parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and required parameters. However, it lacks usage context such as prerequisites (e.g., permissions), when to use vs create, and what to expect for the response beyond 'modified object'. It is adequate but has gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, with all 33 parameters described in the input schema. The description only lists the three required parameters, which are already marked in the schema. Thus, it adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 it updates an existing Commitment Contract and specifies that only supplied fields are changed. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_commitment_contract or show_a_commitment_contract, but the verb and resource make the purpose clear.

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 says 'Use this to update an existing Commitments' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., create_commitment_contract). There are no when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tool mentions.

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