commitment_acknowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the action is non-destructive ('never erased'), has an effect on future matching behavior ('stops surfacing'), and specifies error behavior ('Returns unknown_uid'). This is meaningful transparency, though it leaves out details like permissions and success return value.

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 two sentences and front-loads the main purpose, followed by side effects and error behavior. The 'split-stick halves match again' metaphor adds color but is not overly wasteful.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, it covers the main effect, persistence, and error condition. However, it does not explain parameters or the success return value, leaving some context gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain what 'uid' and 'app_id' represent. Only 'unknown_uid' indirectly implies uid identifies the commitment, but app_id is entirely 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 clearly states the tool 'Marks a commitment change as seen by the operator' and explains the effect (stops surfacing as mismatch). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like commitment_surface and commitment_ingest through the specific verb 'acknowledge' and the resource 'commitment change'.

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 when an operator has seen a commitment change and wants to record it as acknowledged, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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