marrow_commit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions required proof and consequential work, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., auto-calling marrow_agent_runtime via auto_gate), persistence, or validation behavior. The description adds some context but leaves significant behavioral aspects unexplained.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, cross-tool inputs, and rationale. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 (13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is relatively thin. It doesn't explain the overall closure workflow, what happens after commit, or how proof is validated. The schema covers parameter details, but the description alone would not fully guide an agent on the complete commit process.

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 baseline is 3. The description references 'success/failure, outcome, and proof' which maps to the required parameters, but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. It does not clarify parameter relationships or formats beyond what's already in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Close') with a clear resource ('a recorded action') and outlines the core purpose: recording success/failure, outcome, and proof. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like marrow_think (initiating) or marrow_agent_runtime (executing).

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 gives direct guidance on what to supply ('Use the decision_id from marrow_think and the gate receipt from marrow_agent_runtime for consequential work') and explains why closure is needed ('accountable fleet learning'). It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the context is clear enough for a commit/closure tool.

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