set_remediation_commitment

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

The annotations already declare the write/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower; the description still adds the WRITE_ENABLED=true gating requirement, which is real operational context not encoded in annotations. It does not describe what happens on date overwrite or whether the record is validated, but that is a minor gap against the existing annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the action and target fields come first, then the write prerequisite is bolded and appended. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials, but it names only VI and RT while the schema's enum also allows 'vg' (Vulnerability Group) — an agent cannot tell what that branch writes to or whether the same date semantics apply. No mention of return value or failure modes either.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value by mapping the abstract 'commitment_date' parameter to distinct physical columns depending on record family. It leaves the 'vg' enum value's destination field unstated, which slightly undercuts the mapping story.

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 (set) and names the exact destination fields (remediation_commitment_dt_tm / ttr_target_date) on two named record types, which makes the effect unmistakable. It stops short of distinguishing itself from nearby siblings like update_remediation_task or update_vulnerable_item, which could plausibly also touch these records.

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?

It implies when to use it (to assign a commitment/target date on a VI or RT) and flags the WRITE_ENABLED=true prerequisite, which is genuinely useful context. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing, so an agent must infer whether update_remediation_task or update_vulnerability is the better choice.

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