Commit acquisition

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

Despite destructiveHint=false, the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: it is a write operation ('Write.'), irreversible ('point of no return'), and dry-run by default with a confirm flag to execute. This goes beyond the minimal annotation and tells the agent the safety model (preview first, then commit). It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 short sentences, with the core action and key caveat in the first sentence. Every clause earns its place — 'Dry-run by default' and 'pass confirm:true to commit' are critical. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the essential purpose, the dry-run default, the confirmation step, and the irreversible nature. The schema fills in parameter details. It does not explicitly describe return values or what happens post-commit, but given the simplicity and rich schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including id, confirm, and auditUser. The description merely restates the confirm behavior ('pass confirm:true to commit') which is also in the schema's confirm description. No additional semantic meaning is added beyond the schema, so it receives the baseline of 3.

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 opens with 'Commit a pending acquisition to the A&D book' — a specific verb and resource that clearly differentiates from siblings like create_pending_acquisition or commit_disposition. The em-dash 'point of no return' reinforces the finalizing nature. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 tool is for finalizing a pending acquisition: it references 'pending acquisition' and explains the dry-run default with a confirm flag to actually commit. This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions. Sibling names make the niche clear, but the description itself stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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