commit_result

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates that the tool commits a digest rather than revealing results, but it does not disclose whether the commitment is durable, irreversible, tied to an identity, or what side effects or response an agent should expect.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately names the action and object. The timing clause adds the only essential context without filler.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It leaves unclear how campaign_id and workflow_id are used, what sharing_policy means, whether binding_token is required in practice, and what the tool returns after a successful commit.

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 only 20%, so the description needs to compensate, but it only adds meaning for the commitment parameter by describing it as a SHA-256 digest. It says nothing about campaign_id, workflow_id, binding_token, or sharing_policy; values like 'blinded' and 'embargoed' remain unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Commit') and a specific resource ('SHA-256 digest') and clearly places it in time ('before independent workers reveal results'). This distinguishes it from reveal_result and other result-recording tools even though no sibling is named.

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 gives a clear temporal usage context: call this before independent workers reveal results. It does not explicitly name reveal_result as the paired alternative or list when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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