commitment_acknowledge

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

Behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the annotations: it records an 'acknowledged' history entry that is never erased, alters state to stop surfacing a mismatch, and returns unknown_uid if the commitment does not exist. This is additive to the provided idempotentHint and destructiveHint, giving a clearer model of side effects.

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 three sentences long and reasonably concise, but the metaphor 'split-stick halves match again' is extraneous and may confuse rather than clarify. The structure is simple, though the metaphor could be replaced with a direct explanation for better clarity.

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?

While the description explains the action and its effect, it does not provide context on what a 'commitment' is, the role of uid and app_id, or any prerequisites (e.g., whether the commitment must exist beforehand). The lack of parameter elaboration and the absence of an output schema description besides the unknown_uid return leave it incomplete for a standalone call.

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?

The schema defines two parameters (uid and app_id) without any descriptions, and the tool description does not mention or explain these parameters at all. With schema coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving an agent without any guidance on what values to provide or what they represent.

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 identifies the action as 'Mark a commitment change as seen by the operator' and explains the effects: recorded as an acknowledged history entry (never erased) and stops surfacing as a mismatch. It also notes the return value for missing commitments. The cryptic metaphor 'split-stick halves match again' adds some ambiguity, but the core purpose remains unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like commitment_ingest or commitment_list.

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 the appropriate usage condition: when a commitment change needs to be acknowledged and no longer should appear as a mismatch. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some inference needed. The lack of explicit comparison to similar tools (e.g., commitment_ingest, grove_ack) reduces the guidance offered.

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