create_commitment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' clearly implies mutation, and the description adds the manual-vs-auto-detection context. However, it doesn't disclose what happens upon creation (return format, whether duplicates are checked, permission requirements), though the presence of an output schema partially mitigates the need to explain return values.

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 two short sentences with zero wasted words. 'Create a new commitment manually' states the action and scope, and 'Use this to track a promise that wasn't auto-detected' adds the key use case. 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?

This is a create-type tool with 9 parameters and an output schema. The description covers the fundamental purpose and use case. With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. The manually-created/auto-detected distinction adds meaningful context about when this tool is appropriate versus relying on automatic detection.

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% (all 9 parameters are described), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the high-level context that this is 'manual' creation, but doesn't elaborate on parameter relationships or edge cases beyond what the schema documents. The description mentions tracking promises, which maps conceptually to direction (i_promised/they_promised), but that linkage is implicit.

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 this tool creates a new commitment manually, using 'Create' as a specific verb with a clear resource ('commitment'). It adds the scope 'manually' and purpose 'track a promise that wasn't auto-detected', which differentiates it from the many read/search sibling tools for commitments. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from related mutation siblings like create_delegation or create_follow_up.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: tracking a promise that wasn't auto-detected. 'Use this to track a promise that wasn't auto-detected' implies manual creation is for cases where automatic detection failed. This provides reasonable when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like create_delegation.

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