Vow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does describe the lifecycle actions (set/milestone/resolve/forsake/list) and clarifies that it is not for clocks, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether forsake is destructive, whether changes persist, or what the list action returns, so it is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three short sentences with no wasted words. Core purpose is front-loaded, followed by use-when and the explicit exclusion. Every sentence earns its place.

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 and no annotations/output schema, the description gives a solid operational overview and redirection, and the schema covers parameter details. The main missing piece is output/effect behavior — no description of what resolve/forsake returns or how a list is presented — so it is quite complete but not fully self-contained.

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 every parameter. The description still adds semantic value by framing 'milestone' as advancing, 'forsake' as abandoning, and by enumerating the action categories in plain language, which helps map parameters to operations. It does not add format-level details, but the baseline is already high due full coverage.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Track narrative vows, quests, and obligations with milestones.' It enumerates the exact operations (setting, advancing, resolving, forsaking, listing), so an agent can understand both the purpose and scope. It also distinguishes itself from countdown, making it identifiable among siblings.

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?

Contains explicit use-when guidance: 'Use when: setting, advancing, resolving, forsaking, or listing vows.' It also gives a direct negative rule: 'Do NOT use when: starting a clock timer — use countdown (action: set).' This clearly routes to the correct sibling and specifies the alternative action.

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