notary__commit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses idempotency per (committer, nonce) and the commit-reveal nature, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or what happens on duplicate commits. Some behavioral details are missing but the core behavior is clear.

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 sentences plus a formula. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and additional details are provided without unnecessary words. 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers key aspects: the commit-reveal process, hash construction, deadline format, and idempotency. It lacks information about return values or error conditions, but is mostly complete for a simple commit tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining commit_hash computation, deadline format, and context usage. However, it does not describe all parameters (e.g., committer) in detail, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 purpose: 'Commit to a deliverable BEFORE handover.' It identifies the tool as part of a commit-reveal scheme for verifiable delivery proofs, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like notary__reveal and notary__verify by focusing on the commit step.

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 indicates when to use the tool (before handover) and explains necessary inputs like commit_hash and deadline format. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternative tools, though the context implies it is the first step in a commit-reveal process.

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