upsert_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. It mentions that the store is durable and the source of truth for lifecycle state, but it fails to explain key behaviors such as whether updates are partial or full replacements, how existing records are matched (e.g., by commitment_id), idempotency, or potential side effects like overwriting fields. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences—and immediately front-loads the core action and resource. No filler or redundancy. Every word contributes purpose or context.

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 complex nested schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It communicates the basic upsert semantics but leaves out essential operational details: what fields are required to create a valid commitment, how updates are applied, how the tool identifies an existing record, and what the response contains. An agent would struggle to correctly invoke this tool for real tasks.

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?

The input schema has only one parameter 'commitment' with rich nested structure but zero property descriptions. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, merely calling it a 'commitment record'. It does not explain any of the nested fields, required subfields, or the significance of fields like status, confidence_level, or nudge_log. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb 'Creates or updates' and a specific resource 'commitment record in the durable store'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like query_commitments (read) and extract_commitments (extraction), and the 'source of truth' phrase reinforces its authoritative write role.

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 implies usage for creating or updating commitments, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like promote_commitment or send_nudge, nor does it mention when not to use it. The 'source of truth' statement provides some context but no direct exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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