complete_commitment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It signals a state change (completing something) but doesn't disclose whether the operation is reversible, what happens to associated records (e.g., follow-ups or delegations tied to the commitment), or whether idempotency applies when completing an already-completed 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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence that states the action clearly. No wasted words. Given the tool's simplicity, this brevity is appropriate.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, as a state-changing mutation with no annotations, it would benefit from at least noting irreversibility or success criteria. It's adequate but minimal.

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% — the single parameter commitment_id has a clear description ('ID of the commitment to complete'). With full coverage, the baseline is 3 and the description itself adds nothing beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to.

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+resource ('Mark a commitment as completed') that clearly identifies the action and target resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_commitment and search_commitments, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling to differentiate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The tool is a mutation on commitments but there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., commitment must not be already completed), nor is there any guidance contrasting with related mutating tools like complete_follow_up or complete_delegation.

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