decide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It briefly lists actions but does not explain side effects, errors, idempotency, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic action semantics.

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 relatively concise with a clear overall statement followed by a bullet list. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Minor improvement could be to integrate the list more compactly, but it is still efficient.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, multiple sub-actions) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify required parameters per action, return values, or error conditions, leaving an agent without sufficient context to use it correctly.

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 description provides parameter context for each sub-action (e.g., for 'commit': deliberation_id, agent_id, statement, conditional), which partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. However, parameters like 'verified_by', 'group_id', and 'reason' are not explained, leaving gaps.

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 is for 'Commitments and reputation tracking' and lists sub-actions, making its purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'coordinate' or 'deliberation', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 lists sub-actions but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain prerequisites or scenarios. An agent would need to infer usage from the action names alone.

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