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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds substantial context beyond them: the agent's authority limit ('You may write a decision down; you never make one'), the permission requirement ('Needs permission to change tasks'), and the downstream effect of standingRule (rules are surfaced in every assistant's AI context and must be followed).

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?

Long but front-loaded: the core purpose is the first clause, followed by the rule-recording case, the authority constraint, then linking/permission notes. Nearly every sentence earns its place, though the density of distinct instructions is high enough to be slightly taxing.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the missing pieces: authority boundaries, permission requirements, the search-before-write habit, and the downstream consequence of standingRule. An agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the per-field docs by showing how parameters combine in a workflow ('status decided, standingRule true, them in deciders, their words quoted in reason'), which the schema alone does not express.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Record a decision, or ask a question for a person to decide') and explicitly carves out the boundary against the sibling fenbs_add_context_note ('never as a context note'). An agent can distinguish this from add_context_note, add_lesson, and update_decision without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (person states how something must always/never be done), when-not-to (never as a context note), prerequisites ('Search fenbs_list_decisions first'), and the alternative for changing a rule ('record a new decision with supersedes'). Routing to alternatives is unusually complete.

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