project_commit_ack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully discloses that the acknowledgement binds actor, base commit, staged/untracked digest, and reason; that editing invalidates it; and that the reason must be non-secret. It does not mention permissions or return behavior, but the disclosed invalidation and secrecy rules are substantive.

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 two compact sentences with the action front-loaded and no redundant phrasing. Every clause adds information: scope, binding semantics, invalidation behavior, and the non-secret constraint.

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 four-required-parameter operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers core semantics well. However, it leaves gaps around usage alternatives, explicit parameter mapping, and what a successful call returns, so it is not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare parameter names. It directly maps actor and acknowledgement_reason, implies signature via 'signed', and loosely ties project_root to 'current staged tree', but it does not define expected formats or the exact use of project_root and signature in the binding.

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 states a specific action ('Append'), a specific resource ('one signed local acknowledgement'), and a scope ('current staged tree'), so an agent can understand the core operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related commit workflow siblings like project_commit_gate, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as project_commit_gate or project_change. The description implies a context ('current staged tree') and gives one content constraint ('Reason must be non-secret'), but it does not tell the agent when to choose this tool or when to avoid it.

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