notary__commit

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

With no annotations, description fully covers behavioral traits: explains how commit_hash is computed (sha256 double hash), that deadline is ISO-8601, that context links to escrow/job, and that operation is idempotent. Does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwrites previous commit?) but for a commit tool this is sufficient.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose, then key details (hash computation, deadline, context, idempotency). 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 adequately explains inputs and effect. Covers all required parameters functionally. Could mention the return value (e.g., commitment ID or status) but not critical since output is likely a simple success indicator.

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 has 0% descriptions; the description compensates by explaining commit_hash format, deadline format, context role, and idempotency via nonce. Not all parameters (e.g., committer) are detailed, but the essence is covered. Adds significant meaning beyond bare property names.

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?

Clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Commit to a deliverable BEFORE handover' as part of a commit-reveal scheme. Uses specific verb 'commit' and resource 'deliverable', distinguishing it from sibling tools like reveal and commitment_status via context.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: before handover. Idempotency hint (per committer, nonce) guides safe usage. Does not list when NOT to use or explicitly name alternatives, but the commit-reveal context makes usage boundary clear.

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