Remember commitment

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds context: commitments persist across sessions and are visible in open loops until closed. This goes beyond annotations by explaining lifecycle and visibility, though it does not detail side effects or permissions.

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 compact and front-loaded with key purpose and lifecycle information. However, it could be more structured by listing all parameters and their roles without adding length.

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 presence of an output schema and sibling tools like 'open_loops' and 'close_loop', the description integrates well with the loop system. But it lacks parameter coverage for 4 of 5 parameters, making it incomplete for an agent unfamiliar with the 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only clarifies 'due' as a free-text deadline. It fails to explain 'content' (required), 'project', 'session', or 'namespace', leaving the agent with minimal guidance for invoking with those parameters.

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 defines the tool's purpose as recording a commitment (open loop) for promised work. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings like 'remember' and 'close_loop' by framing it as a persistent, session-spanning promise.

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 explains that commitments remain visible in 'open_loops'/'resume' until closed via 'close_loop', providing clear when-to-use context. It also mentions 'due' as an optional deadline, but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools like 'remember' for non-commitment data.

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