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

"Commits immediately" is a genuine addition beyond the annotations: with confirm_change and discard_change among the siblings, an agent needs to know this write bypasses any staging step, and the description supplies that. It still omits permissions, whether repeat calls create duplicates, and what happens to existing records, which matters for a persistent mutation.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place, with the purpose stated first and the commit behavior immediately after. No padding or redundant restatement of the title.

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-parameter write tool with a nested free-form object and no output schema, the definition covers the what and the persistence semantics but not the parameters or the return shape. Three of four fields remain unexplained, which is a real gap for a tool whose whole job is capturing structured content.

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 coverage is only 25%: additional_information is documented in the schema, but prompt, chosen, and rationale are bare strings with no explanation in either place. The description adds nothing about what should go in prompt versus chosen versus rationale, leaving the most consequential fields ambiguous.

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?

"Store a one-off decision for future reference" gives a concrete verb (store) and resource (decision) with scope (one-off), which separates it from mutation siblings like record_expense or set_meal_decision. It stops short of naming any alternative or contrasting with recurring-decision tools, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase "one-off decision" hints at a boundary with set_meal_decision or routine-style tools, but the agent must guess whether this is for journaling, memory, or decision-tracking, and no prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned.

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