ep_issue_commit

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

Given no annotations, the description explains behavioral traits: 'binds the agent to a specific action type, entity, and policy before execution.' It also lists return fields (commit_id, decision, etc.). This provides sufficient transparency for a tool creating a signed commitment.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant words, front-loaded with purpose and return. Every sentence adds meaningful information.

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?

Despite 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return but lacks details on conditions for 'allow/deny/review' decisions, error handling, or interpretation of appeal path. This leaves room for ambiguity in complex scenarios.

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 descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description adds value by summarizing the return fields and the binding effect, which goes beyond the schema. It does not, however, elaborate on parameter interactions or constraints.

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 'Issue a signed EP Commit before a high-stakes action' with specific return fields (commit_id, decision, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ep_get_commit_status or ep_revoke_commit.

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 specifies when to use ('before a high-stakes action'), implying pre-action authorization. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or direct mention of alternatives among the many siblings.

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