Record a commitment

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

Annotations only declare mutation, open-world, and non-destructive; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing two distinct 409 failure modes (COMMITMENT_ALREADY_OPEN, POSSIBLE_DUPLICATE), the resume semantics of the first, and the confirm_new override for the second. This is exactly the kind of error/retry behavior an agent needs and cannot infer from structured fields.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the two error paths in the order an agent would encounter them. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the flow, the required fields, and both refusal paths. The one gap is the successful return shape — the description explains what a 409 body returns but not what a created commitment looks like, which matters given there is no output schema.

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 already 82%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: commitmentKey is glossed with a concrete example ('acme/quote-followup') and its stability requirement, expectedSignalAt is tied to the expected-signal concept, and confirm_new's override role is restated in context. It doesn't touch roi, verb, or dueAt, but those are handled in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Record an action you will take or took, with the signal you expect back') and pins the endpoint (POST /actions). The commitmentKey/expectedSignal framing clearly separates it from siblings like forbiz_record_signal or forbiz_close, which deal with signals and closure rather than opening a commitment.

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?

Gives concrete operational routing: always send commitmentKey and expectedSignalAt, resending the same key is the documented way to resume, and confirm_new true should only be used 'if it is a different objective.' It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g. when to use forbiz_record_signal vs this tool), which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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